MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046650404 · doi:10.11159/icbes20.119

Moving horizon estimation for continuous glucose monitoring

2020· article· en· W3046650404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Theresa Kruse, Knut Graichen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimationHorizonComputer scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have great advantages for the treatment of diabetes.Common commercial sensors are placed in the subcutaneous tissue and continuously measure (1-5 min) a signal correlated to the glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (ISF).As the glucose concentration in the ISF and the blood compartment differ, especially after meal or insulin injection, blood glucose (BG) estimation methods improve the consistency of CGM sensor glucose values and standard blood glucose measurements.However, reference measurements (selfmonitoring blood glucose measurements) are typically required for the calibration of CGM sensors.Thus, the sensor calibration also depends on the quality of BG estimation.In this paper we present a BG estimation method based on moving horizon estimation combined with an adaptive noise variance estimation.Compared with the common estimation methods, Kalman filtering and signal smoothing, the presented method achieves an improve of BG estimation.In addition, the method leads to an improved estimation of past BG values, leading to better calibration results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and ScienceSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207