Target Attainment Through Algorithm Design During Intravenous Insulin Infusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Algorithms were designed under a single model, to attain differing designated glycemic targets during intravenous insulin infusion, and evaluated in order to justify computerization of the model. The approximate maintenance rate (MR) of insulin infusion is discovered according to rate of change of blood glucose (BG) and previous insulin infusion rate (IR). During treatment, re-assignment of IR depends on MR and BG. For each MR, a roughly sigmoidal relationship between BG and IR is specified, such that the inflection point falls approximately at a true target BG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Performance at St. Francis Hospital, Evanston, IL, was examined during use of tabular algorithms targeting three distinct BG ranges, appropriate for the treatment of hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperglycemia accompanying other critical illness. Group membership was defined according to algorithm used for patient treatment during the first 6 months of 2012. The group geometric mean (GGM) and multiplicative surrogate standard deviation (MSSD) are reported as group measures, respectively typifying the central tendency and variability of individual patient BG distributions. RESULTS: Between first attainment of target range BG control and a data collection end point, BG data were evaluable during treatment courses for 58 patients. During this time frame, in the group treated with target 100-149 mg/dL, there were five episodes of BG <70 mg/dL for each of five patients, with the lowest being 57 mg/dL. The GGM (with multiplicative standard deviation) was 269.4 (÷/× 1.06) mg/dL for the algorithm having target 200-299 mg/dL (n = 3 treatment courses), 172.6 (÷/× 1.15) mg/dL for target 150-199 mg/dL (n = 7), and 131.3 (÷/× 1.19) mg/dL for target 100-149 mg/dL (n = 48). The values of MSSD for the three groups were (÷/× 1.14), (÷/× 1.20), and (÷/× 1.20), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot series suggests that once target range BG is attained, maintenance of control within each of three distinct BG target ranges is achievable, according to choice of algorithm.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".