Nicholas Lam1, Rua Murray2, Paul D Docherty1,3, Lisa Te Morenga4, J Geoffrey Chase1. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 3. Institute of Technical Medicine, Furtwangen University, Villingen-Schwenningen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. 4. Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The identification of insulin sensitivity in glycemic modelling can be heavily obstructed by the presence of outlying data or unmodelled effects. The effect of data indicative of local mixing is especially problematic with models assuming rapid mixing of compartments. Methods such as manual removal of data and outlier detection methods have been used to improve parameter ID in these cases, but modelling data with more compartments is another potential approach. METHODS: This research compares a mixing model with local depot site compartments with an existing, clinically validated insulin sensitivity test model. The Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) parameter identification method was implemented alongside a modified version (aLM) capable of operator-independent omission of outlier data in accordance with the 3 standard deviation rule. Three cases were tested: LM where data points suspected to be affected by incomplete mixing at the depot site were removed, aLM, and LM with the more complex mixing model. RESULTS: While insulin parameters identified in the mixing model differed greatly from those in the DISST model, there were strong Spearman correlations of approximately 0.93 for the insulin sensitivity values identified across all 3 methods. The 2 models also showed comparable identification stability in insulin sensitivity estimation through a Monte Carlo analysis. However, the mixing model required modifications to the identification process to improve convergence, and still failed to converge to feasible parameters on 5 of the 212 trials. CONCLUSIONS: The mixing compartment model effectively captured the dynamics of mixing behavior, but with no significant improvement in insulin sensitivity identification.
BACKGROUND: The identification of insulin sensitivity in glycemic modelling can be heavily obstructed by the presence of outlying data or unmodelled effects. The effect of data indicative of local mixing is especially problematic with models assuming rapid mixing of compartments. Methods such as manual removal of data and outlier detection methods have been used to improve parameter ID in these cases, but modelling data with more compartments is another potential approach. METHODS: This research compares a mixing model with local depot site compartments with an existing, clinically validated insulin sensitivity test model. The Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) parameter identification method was implemented alongside a modified version (aLM) capable of operator-independent omission of outlier data in accordance with the 3 standard deviation rule. Three cases were tested: LM where data points suspected to be affected by incomplete mixing at the depot site were removed, aLM, and LM with the more complex mixing model. RESULTS: While insulin parameters identified in the mixing model differed greatly from those in the DISST model, there were strong Spearman correlations of approximately 0.93 for the insulin sensitivity values identified across all 3 methods. The 2 models also showed comparable identification stability in insulin sensitivity estimation through a Monte Carlo analysis. However, the mixing model required modifications to the identification process to improve convergence, and still failed to converge to feasible parameters on 5 of the 212 trials. CONCLUSIONS: The mixing compartment model effectively captured the dynamics of mixing behavior, but with no significant improvement in insulin sensitivity identification.
Entities:
Keywords:
glycemic modelling; least squares estimation; numerical optimization; outlier data
Authors: W Regittnig; Z Trajanoski; H J Leis; M Ellmerer; A Wutte; G Sendlhofer; L Schaupp; G A Brunner; P Wach; T R Pieber Journal: Diabetes Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Erin J Mansell; Signe Schmidt; Paul D Docherty; Kirsten Nørgaard; John B Jørgensen; Henrik Madsen Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.745
Authors: Thomas F Lotz; J Geoffrey Chase; Kirsten A McAuley; Geoffrey M Shaw; Paul D Docherty; Juliet E Berkeley; Sheila M Williams; Christopher E Hann; Jim I Mann Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2010-11-01
Authors: S M Haffner; R D'Agostino; L Mykkänen; R Tracy; B Howard; M Rewers; J Selby; P J Savage; M F Saad Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Barbora Vozarova; Christian Weyer; Robert S Lindsay; Richard E Pratley; Clifton Bogardus; P Antonio Tataranni Journal: Diabetes Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.461