| Literature DB >> 35808352 |
Abstract
The past few decades have seen ongoing development of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems that are noninvasive and accurately measure blood glucose levels. The conventional finger-prick method, though accurate, is not feasible for use multiple times a day, as it is painful and test strips are expensive. Although minimally invasive and noninvasive CGM systems have been introduced into the market, they are expensive and require finger-prick calibrations. As the diabetes trend is high in low- and middle-income countries, a cost-effective and easy-to-use noninvasive glucose monitoring device is the need of the hour. This review paper briefly discusses the noninvasive glucose measuring technologies and their related research work. The technologies discussed are optical, transdermal, and enzymatic. The paper focuses on Near Infrared (NIR) technology and NIR Photoplethysmography (PPG) for blood glucose prediction. Feature extraction from PPG signals and glucose prediction with machine learning methods are discussed. The review concludes with key points and insights for future development of PPG NIR-based blood glucose monitoring systems.Entities:
Keywords: Photoplethysmography (PPG); machine learning (ML) methods; near-infrared (NIR); noninvasive glucose monitoring
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808352 PMCID: PMC9268854 DOI: 10.3390/s22134855
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Noninvasive glucose monitoring system.
Figure 2Infrared spectroscopy.
Figure 3Thermal Emission Spectroscopy.
Figure 4Microwave Spectroscopy working principle.
Figure 5A prototype for the NIR transmission spectroscopy using a 940 nm wavelength for a noninvasive glucose monitoring system.
Figure 6Block diagram of the NIR PPG signal glucose sensing platform with machine learning.
Figure 7PPG waveform and its basic features.
Different feature set performance with four machine learning algorithms.
| SVR-Fine Gaussian | SVR Quadratic | Linear Regression | En. Boosted Trees | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combination of Features | mARD | RMSE | mARD | RMSE | mARD | RMSE | mARD | RMSE |
| ARPPG, KTEσ, KTEµ, KTEiqr, KTEskew, ARKTE, LogEσ, LogEµ, LogEiqr, ARLogE, SEσ, SEµ, SEiqr, SEskew (14 Features) | 8.36 | 11.29 | 18.27 | 25.21 | 22.57 | 33.85 | 18.27 | 25.21 |
| KTEσ, KTEµ, KTEiqr, KTEskew, LogEσ, LogEµ, LogEiqr, SEσ, SEµ, SEiqr, SEskew (11 Features) | 10.16 | 12.31 | 15.01 | 46.00 | 14.66 | 26.00 | 15.24 | 21.64 |
| KTEσ, KTEµ, KTEiqr, KTEskew, LogEσ, LogEiqr, SEσ, SEµ, SEiqr, SEskew (10 Features) | 13.66 | 21.93 | 22.09 | 44.41 | 16.19 | 29.94 | 16.18 | 23.00 |
| KTEσ, KTEµ, KTEiqr, KTEskew, LogEσ, LogEiqr, SEσ, SEµ, SEiqr, SEskew (8 Features) | 12.17 | 21.6 | 22.05 | 50 | 19.19 | 25.86 | 16.05 | 23.21 |
| KTEσ, KTEµ, LogEσ, LogEμ, SEσ, SEµ (6 Features) | 7.62 | 11.20 | 21.10 | 42.90 | 13.22 | 23.35 | 9.67 | 13.00 |
Performance of different machine learning algorithms for the new feature set.
| Machine Learning Algorithm | mARD | RMSE |
|---|---|---|
| Linear Regression | 8.25 | 12.35 |
| Fine Gaussian | 7.36 | 11.20 |
| Non-Linear Medium Gaussian | 6.52 | 10.15 |
| Ensemble Boosted Trees | 5.83 | 8.65 |
Taken from NEWCAS 2022 [47].
Comparison table of the PPG-based NIR BGL estimation.
| Author (Reference) | Number of Features | Machine Learning Technique | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monte-Moreno E. [ | 33 | Random Forest | 0.88 |
| Habbu S. et al. [ | 28 | Neural Networks | 0.91 |
| Yadav J. et al. [ | 17 | Neural Networks | 0.96 |
| Hina A. et al. [ | 6 | Fine Gaussian SVR | 0.937 |
| Hina A. et al. [ | 6 | Ensemble Boosted Trees | 0.956 |
Figure 8Measured PPG signals with BGL estimation for 3 different subjects having reference a BGL of 79, 115, and 318 mg/dL, respectively. Reprinted with permission from [44].
Figure 9The Clarke error grid analysis of estimated and reference BGL. Reprinted with permission from [44].