MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979709296 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2946693

CausalBG: Causal Recurrent Neural Network for the Blood Glucose Inference With IoT Platform

2019· article· en· W2979709296 on OpenAlexaff
Miao He, Weixi Gu, Ying Kong, Lin Zhang, Costas J. Spanos, Khalid M. Mosalam

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInferenceCausal inferenceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkInternet of ThingsRecurrent neural networkEmbedded systemStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting blood glucose concentration facilitates timely preventive measures against health risks induced by abnormal glucose events. Advances in IoT devices, such as continuous blood glucose monitors (CGMs) have made it convenient for measurements of blood glucose in real time. However, accurate and personalized blood glucose concentration prediction is still challenging. Previous inference models yield low-inference accuracy due to the ineffective feature extraction and the limited, imbalanced personal training data. The underlying causal correlations among the blood glucose series are scarcely captured by these models. In this article, we propose CausalBG, a causal recurrent neural network (CausalRNN) deployed on an IoT platform with smartphones and CGM for the accurate and efficient individual blood glucose concentration prediction. CausalBG automatically captures the underlying causal relationships embedded in the blood glucose features through CausalRNN, and efficiently shares the limited personal data among users for the sufficient training via the multitask framework. Evaluations and case studies on 112 users demonstrate that CausalBG significantly outperforms the conventional predictive models on the blood glucose dynamics inference.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207