A data-driven personalized approach to predict blood glucose levels in type-1 diabetes patients exercising in free-living conditions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The development of new technologies has generated vast amount of data that can be analyzed to better understand and predict the glycemic behavior of people living with type 1 diabetes. This paper aims to assess whether a data-driven approach can accurately and safely predict blood glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes exercising in free-living conditions. METHODS: Multiple machine learning (XGBoost, Random Forest) and deep learning (LSTM, CNN-LSTM, Dual-encoder with Attention layer) regression models were considered. Each deep-learning model was implemented twice: first, as a personalized model trained solely on the target patient's data, and second, as a fine-tuned model of a population-based training model. The datasets used for training and testing the models were derived from the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI). A total of 79 patients in T1DEXI met our inclusion criteria. Our models used various features related to continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pumps, carbohydrate intake, exercise (intensity and duration), and physical activity-related information (steps and heart rate). This data was available for four weeks for each of the 79 included patients. Three prediction horizons (10, 20, and 30 min) were tested and analyzed. RESULTS: For each patient, there always exists either a machine learning or a deep learning model that conveniently predicts BGLs for up to 30 min. The best performing model differs from one patient to another. When considering the best performing model for each patient, the median and the mean Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values (across the 79 patients) for predictions made 10 min ahead were 6.99 mg/dL and 7.46 mg/dL, respectively. For predictions made 30 min ahead, the median and mean RMSE values were 16.85 mg/dL and 17.74 mg/dL, respectively. The majority of the predictions output by the best model of each patient fell within the clinically safe zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid (CEG), with almost no predictions falling into the unsafe zone E. The most challenging patient to predict 30 min ahead achieved an RMSE value of 32.31 mg/dL (with the corresponding best performing model). The best-predicted patient had an RMSE value of 10.48 mg/dL. Predicting blood glucose levels was more difficult during and after exercise, resulting in higher RMSE values on average. Prediction errors during and after physical activity (two hours and four hours after) generally remained within the clinical safe zones of the CEG with less than 0.5% of predictions falling into the harmful zones D and E, regardless of the exercise category. CONCLUSIONS: Data-driven approaches can accurately predict blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes patients exercising in free-living conditions. The best-performing model varies across patients. Approaches in which a population-based model is initially trained and then fine-tuned for each individual patient generally achieve the best performance for the majority of patients. Some patients remain challenging to predict with no straightforward explanation of why a patient is more challenging to predict than another.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».