Beyond Expected Patterns in Insulin Needs of People With Type 1 Diabetes: Temporal Analysis of Automated Insulin Delivery Data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a chronic condition in which the body produces too little insulin, a hormone needed to regulate blood glucose. Various factors such as carbohydrates, exercise, and hormones impact insulin needs. Beyond carbohydrates, most factors remain underexplored. Regulating insulin is a complex control task that can go wrong and cause blood glucose levels to fall outside a range that protects people from adverse health effects. Automated insulin delivery (AID) has been shown to maintain blood glucose levels within a narrow range. Beyond clinical outcomes, data from AID systems are little researched; such systems can provide data-driven insights to improve the understanding and treatment of T1D. Objective: The aim is to discover unexpected temporal patterns in insulin needs and to analyze how frequently these occur. Unexpected patterns are situations where increased insulin does not result in lower glucose or where increased carbohydrate intake does not raise glucose levels. Such situations suggest that factors beyond carbohydrates influence insulin needs. Methods: We analyzed time series data on insulin on board (IOB), carbohydrates on board (COB), and interstitial glucose (IG) from 29 participants using the OpenAPS AID system. Pattern frequency in hours, days (grouped via k-means clustering), weekdays, and months were determined by comparing the 95% CI of the mean differences between temporal units. Associations between pattern frequency and demographic variables were examined. Significant differences in IOB, COB, and IG across temporal dichotomies were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Effect sizes and Euclidean distances between variables were calculated. Finally, the forecastability of IOB, COB, and IG for the clustered days was analyzed using Granger causality. Results: On average, 13.5 participants had unexpected patterns and 9.9 had expected patterns. The patterns were more pronounced (d>0.94) when comparing hours of the day and similar days than when comparing days of the week or months (0.3<d<0.52). Notably, 11 participants exhibited a higher IG overnight despite concurrently higher IOB (10/11). Additionally, 17 participants experienced an increase in IG after COB decreased after meals. The significant associations between pattern frequency and demographics were moderate (0.31≤τ≤0.48). Between clusters, mean IOB (P=.03, d=0.7) and IG (P=.02, d=0.67) differed significantly, but COB did not (P=.08, d=0.55). IOB and IG were most similar (mean distance 5.08, SD 2.25), while COB and IG were most different (mean distance 11.43, SD 2.6), suggesting that AID attempts to counteract both observed and unobserved factors that impact IG. Conclusions: Our study shows that unexpected patterns in the insulin needs of people with T1D are as common as expected patterns. Unexpected patterns cannot be explained by carbohydrates alone. Our results highlight the complexity of glucose regulation and emphasize the need for personalized treatment approaches. Further research is needed to identify and quantify the factors that cause these patterns.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».