Glucose Meter Performance Criteria for Tight Glycemic Control Estimated by Simulation Modeling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose meter analytical performance criteria required for safe and effective management of patients on tight glycemic control (TGC) are not currently defined. We used simulation modeling to relate glucose meter performance characteristics to insulin dosing errors during TGC. METHODS: We used 29,920 glucose values from patients on TGC at 1 institution to represent the expected distribution of glucose values during TGC, and we used 2 different simulation models to relate glucose meter analytical performance to insulin dosing error using these 29,920 initial glucose values and assuming 10%, 15%, or 20% total allowable error (TEa) criteria. RESULTS: One-category insulin dosing errors were common under all error conditions. Two-category insulin dosing errors occurred more frequently when either 20% or 15% TEa was assumed compared with 10% total error. Dosing errors of 3 or more categories, those most likely to result in hypoglycemia and thus patient harm, occurred infrequently under all error conditions with the exception of 20% TEa. CONCLUSIONS: Glucose meter technologies that operate within a 15% total allowable error tolerance are unlikely to produce large (>or=3-category) insulin dosing errors during TGC. Increasing performance to 10% TEa should reduce the frequency of 2-category insulin dosing errors, although additional studies are necessary to determine the clinical impact of such errors during TGC. Current criteria that allow 20% total allowable error in glucose meters may not be optimal for patient management during TGC.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it