MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Upcoming Glucose Levels in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Using a Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity Modelling Approach

2015· article· en· W1945131993 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanjoy K. Paul, Mayukh Samanta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentTherapeutic Innovation AustraliaQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityAutoregressive modelAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility (finance)EconometricsType 2 diabetesContinuous glucose monitoringDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous blood glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) capture interstitial glucose levels at frequent intervals over time, and are used by people with diabetes and their health care professionals to assess glycaemic variability. This information helps to adjust treatment to achieve optimum glycaemic control, as well as potentially providing early warning of imminent and dangerous hypoglycaemia. Although a number of studies has reported the possibilities of predicting hypoglycaemia in insulin dependent type 1 diabetes (T1DM) patients, the prediction paradigm is still unreliable, as glucose fluctuations in people with diabetes are highly volatile and depend on many factors. Studies have proposed the use of linear auto-regressive (AR) and state space time series models to analyse the glucose profiles for predicting upcoming glucose levels. However, these modelling approaches have not adequately addressed the inherent dependencies and volatility aspects in the glucose profiles. We have investigated the utility of generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models to explore glucose time-series trends and volatility, and possibility of reliable short-term forecasting of glucose levels. GARCH models were explored using CGMS profiles of young children (4 to <10 years) with T1DM. The prediction performances of GARCH approach were compared with other contemporary modelling approaches such as lower and higher order AR, and the state space models. The GARCH approach appears to be successful in both realizing the volatility in glucose profiles and offering potentially more reliable forecasting of upcoming glucose levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207