| Literature DB >> 35062385 |
Yirui Xue1, Angelika S Thalmayer1, Samuel Zeising1, Georg Fischer1, Maximilian Lübke1.
Abstract
Diabetes is a chronic and, according to the state of the art, an incurable disease. Therefore, to treat diabetes, regular blood glucose monitoring is crucial since it is mandatory to mitigate the risk and incidence of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Nowadays, it is common to use blood glucose meters or continuous glucose monitoring via stinging the skin, which is classified as invasive monitoring. In recent decades, non-invasive monitoring has been regarded as a dominant research field. In this paper, electrochemical and electromagnetic non-invasive blood glucose monitoring approaches will be discussed. Thereby, scientific sensor systems are compared to commercial devices by validating the sensor principle and investigating their performance utilizing the Clarke error grid. Additionally, the opportunities to enhance the overall accuracy and stability of non-invasive glucose sensing and even predict blood glucose development to avoid hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia using post-processing and sensor fusion are presented. Overall, the scientific approaches show a comparable accuracy in the Clarke error grid to that of the commercial ones. However, they are in different stages of development and, therefore, need improvement regarding parameter optimization, temperature dependency, or testing with blood under real conditions. Moreover, the size of scientific sensing solutions must be further reduced for a wearable monitoring system.Entities:
Keywords: Clarke error grid; blood glucose monitoring; commercial; diabetes mellitus; machine learning; microwave; non-invasive monitoring; review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062385 PMCID: PMC8780031 DOI: 10.3390/s22020425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Electromagnetic spectrum.
Figure 2View of saliva-based design (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [29] © 2021 American Chemical Society).
Figure 3Fabrication of radiometric fluorescent glucose-sensing membranes (Adapted from Ref. [58]).
Response characteristics of each supporting material according to the results of [58].
| Supporting Material | Limit of Detection (LOD) | Maximal Reaction Rate ( | Michaelis–Menten Constant ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| EC | 0.5 mg/dL | 8568 mg/dL·min | 5.1 mg/dL |
| D4 | 0.5 mg/dL | 2534.4 mg/dL·min | 6.6 mg/dL |
| GA | 0.8 mg/dL | 1314 mg/dL·min | 6.6 mg/dL |
Reversibility performance and comparison of SI for standard and tear glucose with the three supporting materials EC, D4 and GA in glucose according to the results of [58].
| Supporting Material | RSD at 0 mg/dL | RSD at 36 mg/dL |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | 0.32% | 0.15% | 0.0555 | 0.0503 |
| D4 | 0.38% | 0.79% | 0.0821 | 0.0846 |
| GA | 23% | 0.33% | 0.0561 | 0.057 |
Figure 4Percentage deviation of radiometric fluorescence intensities and the response between radiometric fluorescence intensities and standard and tear glucose (Reprinted from Ref. [58]).
Figure 5Scheme of a applied BGL measurement setup using Raman spectroscopy (Adapted from Ref. [77]).
Figure 6Scheme of Raman spectroscopy system (Adapted from Ref. [83]).
Figure 7The off-axis Raman instrument (Adapted from Ref. [83]).
Prediction evaluation results of the three criteria. R: regression analysis, MARD: mean absolute relative difference and CEG A + B: zones A and B in the Clarke error grid according to the results of [84].
| Prediction Method | ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| R | MARD | CEG A + B | |
| RF regression | 0.91 → 0.35 | 20.3% → 54.6% | 93.0% → 82.4% |
| PLSR | 0.91 → 0.34 | 20.3% → 54.8% | 93.0% → 82.4% |
Figure 8Wearable multisensor platform for non-invasive glucose sensing. The system includes impedance spectroscopy-based sensors (electrodes) as well as optical sensors (LEDs, photoelectric sensor) and humidity and temperature sensors (Reprinted from Ref. [87]).
Output magnitude and phase shift of reflected signal and transmission signal according to the results of [93].
| Reflected Signal | Transmission Signal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnitude (mV) | Phase Shift (°) | Magnitude (mV) | Phase Shift (°) | |
| ∼894.4 | ∼−3.8 | ∼858 | — | |
| ∼891.2 | ∼−3.96 | ∼864 | ∼−7.76 | |
Figure 9Working principle of the proposed sensor system by Omer et al. The portable radar-driven sensor measures the BGL by sensing electromagnetic waves of small wavelengths into the blood vessels of the fingertip (Reprinted from Ref. [35]).
Figure 10View of the proposed sensor approach (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [98] © 2020 IEEE).
Figure 11Phase variation of and due to the different glucose concentrations (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [98] © 2020 IEEE). (a) Phase variation of with a glucose concentration of 10–110 mg/dL. (b) Phase variation of with a glucose concentration of 50–500 mg/dL. (c) Phase variation of with a glucose concentration of 10–110 mg/dL.
Performance comparison of different resonator approaches.
| Reference | Biosensor Structure | Concentration | Size | Sample Amount | Sensitivity | Limit of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | LC-Resonator | 30–500 | 0.006 × 0.005 | 0.1 | 0.0049 | 35 |
| [ | LC-Resonator | 25–500 | 0.026 × 0.060 | 1 | NA | 80 |
| [ | CSRR Resonator | 30–400 | 0.251 × 0.386 | NA | 0.0003 | NA |
| [ | CSRR Resonator | 0–500 | NA | 70 | 0.005 | NA |
| [ | Hilbert-shaped Resonator | 50–250 | 0.408 × 0.808 | 500 | 0.000156 | 19.2 |
Figure 12Overview of the signal post-processing redrawn according to [32]. (a) Structure of the applied neural network. (b) Structure of the applied cross validation.
Performance comparison of recently published earlobe models, concerning analytical as well as neural network approaches such as Complex-Valued Neural Networks (CVNN). Cal. corresponds to calibration.
| Reference | Frequency | Utilized Data, | Estimation | Dataset | Concentration | Sensitivity | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 60 | Analytical | 10 healthy men | 23.94–4788 |
| Glucose spike | |
| [ | 1.4–1.9 | Data Fitting | 12 meas. samples |
| Average error | ||
| [ | 60–80 | CVNN | 50–300 | — | Estimation for 100 mg/dL: | ||
| [ | 3–10 | Absorption | Linear | meas. from 0 to 500 mg/dL | 20–500 | — | Proof of concept |
| [ | 0.2–4 | INNHO | training: | 20–500 |
| RMSE: 5.52 mg/dL |
Figure 13Correctness of real and predicted values of BGmax (Adapted from Ref. [114]).
Performance comparison of previous publications regarding the iAUC120 value.
| Reference | Value | Model | Performance | Diabetic Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | iAUC120 | Boosted decision trees | R = 0.644 | TGD |
| [ | iAUC120 | Boosted decision trees | R = 0.70 | healthy |
| [ | iAUC120 | Boosted decision trees | R = 0.62 | healthy |
Criteria for FDA and EMA according to [26,77].
| Reference | Agency | Country | Blood Glucose Level | Min. Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | EMA | EU | ≥100 mg/dL | |
| [ | FDA | USA | ≥75 mg/dL | |
Figure 14Clarke error grid model. The region A shows the desired accuracy of a glucose sensing system to fulfill clinical accuracy requirements.
Technical data comparison between FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom [22,23,80,123,126].
| FreeStyle Libre 2 | FreeStyle Libre 3 | Dexcom G6 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2020 | 2021 | 2020 |
|
| CGM | CGM | CGM |
|
| electrochemical | electrochemical | electrochemical |
|
| CE Mark | CE Mark | CE Mark |
|
| 5 mm in height | 2.9 mm in height | 45.7 mm × 30.5 mm × 15.2 mm |
|
| 5 g | 1 g | 12 g |
|
| 40–500 mg/dL | 40–500 mg/dL | 40–400 mg/dL |
|
| 14 days | 14 days | 10 days |
|
| 60 min | 60 min | 120 min |
|
| back of the upper arm | back of the upper arm | belly (from the age of 2) |
|
| from the age of 4 | from the age of 4 | from the age of 2 |
|
| mobile phone | mobile phone | mobile phone (Dexcom Follow App) |
Figure 15Commercial systems of FreeStyle Libre 2 and Dexcom G6. (a) FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [135] © Abbott GmbH). (b) Dexcom G6 sensor (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [136] © Dexcom, Inc).
Review and comparison of different sensor systems with and without AI-based post-processing.
| Reference | Evaluation | Measuring | Post- | Detection | Calibration/ | Accuracy/ | Observation | Sensor Size | Influence Factor/ | Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| [ | real saliva | electro- | — | 0–180 | Proof of Concept | — | testing: 20 min; | 25 mm × 5 mm × 0.5 mm | many proteins | 1 person |
| [ | aqueous solution with, | Raman | filtering, | glucose: 18–1081 | area under Raman | 360 s each meas. | — | interference due to | ||
| [ | real blood with NaCl, | microwave | — | 0–40.000 | temperature | reflected signal: | — | decimeter range | temperature of | |
| [ | glucose water | microwave | Debye model | 0–500 | — | phase of | — | tapering, | simulation | |
| [ | glucose solution | microwave | lin. regression | 30–500 | lin. regression | 0.0049 dB/mg/dL | — | optimization for more | — | |
| [ | saline solutions | microwave | regression | 0–180 | regression | 21.7–23.4 | — | diameter: 25 mm | optimization for mobility, | |
| [ | glucose water | microwave | lin. fitting | 25–300 | lin. fitting, | 1.38 MHz per mg/dL | — | centimetre range | temperature, | |
| [ | glucose water | microwave | lin. fitting, | 0–400 | VNA Cal. | 1.947 mdB | 1080 s (CGM) | ≈several | temperature, | |
| [ | real blood | microwave | lin. interpolation | 89–262 | Comparison with | 8.5 GHz: 0.04 per mg/dL | — | temperature (skin, environ.), | 11 persons | |
|
| ||||||||||
| [ | glucose water | microwave | INNHO, | 20–500 | Cal.: SOLT | 0.0045 dB/(mg/dL) | — | measurement | training: | |
| [ | aqueous glucose | microwave | PCA classification | 40–140 | VNA calibrated, | 0.45–0.9 (dispersed) | 1 h each 10 min | temperature, | 600 samples | |
|
| ||||||||||
| [ | pig ears | Raman | Prediction | 52–914 | Lin. Regression | MARD: 6.6% | portable Raman | temperature, heart | 3 female | |
| [ | nail fold | Raman | Prediction | 105–216 | Cal. with 2 | Renishaw inVia confocal | temperature | 12 healthy | ||
| [ | in vivo | impedance spectroscopy | time series analysis | 0–200 | Comparison with | average correlation | flexible wrist band | movement artifacts | 6 healthy, | |
| [ | real blood | microwave | Prediction | 60–400 | Pre-processing | MARD: | — | object movement, | 75 non-diabetic | |
Performance comparison for 30 min prediction horizon.
| Reference | Model | RMSE in mg/dL | Data Set |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | RNN | 18.87 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | RNN | 19.04 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | RNN | 18.22 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Autoregression with exogenous inputs (ARX) | 19.48 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Grammatical evolution (GE) | 21.19 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Physiological models | 19.33 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | XGBoost | 19.32 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) | 21.72 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Ensemble MMS (3 aggregated NNs) | 19.57 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | Long short-term memory (LSTM) | 18.23 | Ohio T1DM |
| [ | RNN and Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RNN-RBM) | 15.59 | DirecNet [ |
| [ | Support Vector Regression (SVR) | 18.0 | own data set |
| [ | LSTM | 21.4 | described in [ |
Overview of the accuracy according to the Clarke error grid. Abbreviations: P = Persons, T1D = diabetes mellitus type 1, T2D = diabetes mellitus type 2, TGD = gestational diabetes mellitus, NA = Not a Number.
| Reference | Measuring Method | Detection Range | Dataset | Clarke Error Grid: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| [ | Dexcom G6 | 40–400 | 25P T1D (resistance), 30 min each | 85.4% | 12.5% | 0% | 2.1% | 0% |
| 74.0% | 26.0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| [ | FreeStyle Libre | 30–400 | 24P T1D, 11P T2D, 39P TGD, all pregnant, 4207 data points | 83.6% | 15.5% | 0% | 0.8% | 0% |
| [ | FreeStyle Libre | 40–500 | 30P T2D, 1353 data points | 88.54% | 11.01% | 0% | 0.45% | 0% |
|
| ||||||||
| [ | Raman Spectroscopy | 50–400 | 10.000 synthetic generated spectra | 93.0% | NA | NA | NA | |
| [ | Raman Spectroscopy | 105–216 | 30 meas. × 12P | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
|
| ||||||||
| [ | Microwave | 60–400 | 205P without categorization | 80.91% | 19.09% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 205P with categorization | 95.12% | 4.88% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |||
| [ | Microwave | 30–500 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| [ | Microwave | 0–180 | 85.7% | 14.3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| [ | Microwave | 0–400 | 10 min in total, 2 min each, concentration level (CGM) | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| [ | Microwave | 50–500 | 1. Silver-painted device | 44.45% | 40.74% | 3.70% | 11.11% | 0% |
| 2. Adhesive copper tape device | 68.97% | 24.14% | 0% | 6.89% | 0% | |||
|
| ||||||||
| [ | Microwave Post Processing INNHO | 20–500 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| [ | Impedance Spectr./Sensor Fusion | 0–200 | 3 T1D P and 6 healthy P | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| [ | Flash CGM | 60–180 | 198 TGD, 37 healthy P | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| [ | Medtronic Enlite CGM sensors | 30–400 | Ohio T1DM dataset [ | patient dependent, >90% in A and B | ||||
| [ | Photoplethysmography (PPG) | 50–150 | synthetic | 80% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Monte Carlo Simulation | 80–200 | real data (35P) | 91.8% | 5.05% | 0% | 3.15% | 0% | |
| [ | RNN | 30–400 | Ohio T1DM dataset | 90% | 9% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
| [ | Grammatical Evolution (GE) | 30–400 | Ohio T1DM dataset | 87.1% | 11.5% | 0% | 1.4% | 0% |