Clara Mosquera-Lopez1, Peter G Jacobs1. 1. Artificial Intelligence for Medical Systems (AIMS) Lab, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this work, we developed glucose forecasting algorithms trained and evaluated on a large dataset of free-living people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using closed-loop (CL) and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapies; and we demonstrate how glucose variability impacts accuracy. We introduce the glucose variability impact index (GVII) and the glucose prediction consistency index (GPCI) to assess the accuracy of prediction algorithms. METHODS: A long-short-term-memory (LSTM) neural network was designed to predict glucose up to 60 minutes in the future using continuous glucose measurements and insulin data collected from 175 people with T1D (41,318 days) and evaluated on 75 people (11,333 days) from the Tidepool Big Data Donation Dataset. LSTM was compared with two naïve forecasting algorithms as well as Ridge linear regression and a random forest using root-mean-square error (RMSE). Parkes error grid quantified clinical accuracy. Regression analysis was used to derive the GVII and GPCI. RESULTS: The LSTM had highest accuracy and best GVII and GPCI. RMSE for CL was 19.8 ± 3.2 and 33.2 ± 5.4 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. RMSE for SAP was 19.6 ± 3.8 and 33.1 ± 7.3 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively; 99.6% and 97.6% of predictions were within zones A+B of the Parkes error grid at 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. Glucose variability was strongly correlated with RMSE (R≥0.64, P < 0.001); GVII and GPCI demonstrated a means to compare algorithms across datasets with different glucose variability. CONCLUSIONS: The LSTM model was accurate on a large real-world free-living dataset. Glucose variability should be considered when assessing prediction accuracy using indices such as GVII and GPCI.
BACKGROUND: In this work, we developed glucose forecasting algorithms trained and evaluated on a large dataset of free-living people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using closed-loop (CL) and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapies; and we demonstrate how glucose variability impacts accuracy. We introduce the glucose variability impact index (GVII) and the glucose prediction consistency index (GPCI) to assess the accuracy of prediction algorithms. METHODS: A long-short-term-memory (LSTM) neural network was designed to predict glucose up to 60 minutes in the future using continuous glucose measurements and insulin data collected from 175 people with T1D (41,318 days) and evaluated on 75 people (11,333 days) from the Tidepool Big Data Donation Dataset. LSTM was compared with two naïve forecasting algorithms as well as Ridge linear regression and a random forest using root-mean-square error (RMSE). Parkes error grid quantified clinical accuracy. Regression analysis was used to derive the GVII and GPCI. RESULTS: The LSTM had highest accuracy and best GVII and GPCI. RMSE for CL was 19.8 ± 3.2 and 33.2 ± 5.4 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. RMSE for SAP was 19.6 ± 3.8 and 33.1 ± 7.3 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively; 99.6% and 97.6% of predictions were within zones A+B of the Parkes error grid at 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. Glucose variability was strongly correlated with RMSE (R≥0.64, P < 0.001); GVII and GPCI demonstrated a means to compare algorithms across datasets with different glucose variability. CONCLUSIONS: The LSTM model was accurate on a large real-world free-living dataset. Glucose variability should be considered when assessing prediction accuracy using indices such as GVII and GPCI.
Authors: Peter G Jacobs; Navid Resalat; Joseph El Youssef; Ravi Reddy; Deborah Branigan; Nicholas Preiser; John Condon; Jessica Castle Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Ravi Reddy; Joseph El Youssef; Kerri Winters-Stone; Deborah Branigan; Joseph Leitschuh; Jessica Castle; Peter G Jacobs Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: C Pérez-Gandía; A Facchinetti; G Sparacino; C Cobelli; E J Gómez; M Rigla; A de Leiva; M E Hernando Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: E I Georga; V C Protopappas; D Ardigo; M Marina; I Zavaroni; D Polyzos; D I Fotiadis Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Eleni I Georga; Vasilios C Protopappas; Demosthenes Polyzos; Dimitrios I Fotiadis Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 2.602