Enhancing Glucose Sensor Models: Modeling the Drop-Outs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer simulation environments have been used in the development of many artificial pancreas systems. A glucose sensor model is an essential part of these environments, and different models have been proposed. However, not one of these models accounts for drop-outs of sensor readings, a well-known phenomenon caused by physical pressure on the sensor site. In this work, we have proposed an enhanced model that accounts for drop-outs and demonstrated its improvement over the existing one-compartment model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Potential drop-outs were augmented to the existing model, and their incidences and magnitudes were estimated simultaneously with the model parameters using the Bayesian approach. Drop-outs and model parameters were estimated from data collected from 15 subjects with type 1 diabetes who underwent an artificial pancreas study. Model fitting and parameter estimates were contrasted between the enhanced model and the existing one-compartment model. RESULTS: Both models achieved similar parameter estimates (P=not significant) and were all physiologically plausible. The enhanced model further estimated 1.71 drop-outs per day, which improved model fit (weighted residual reduced from [minimum -4%, maximum 3%] to [-3%, 2%]) and reduced significantly the deviance information criteria from 2739.72 to 1456.00. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced model improves fitting of glucose levels and should allow more realistic simulations that assesses artificial pancreas systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".