The challenge of predicting blood glucose concentration changes in patients with type I diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Type I Diabetes (T1D) must take insulin injections to prevent the serious long term effects of hyperglycemia. They must also be careful not to inject too much insulin because this could induce (potentially fatal) hypoglycemia. Patients therefore follow a “regimen” that determines how much insulin to inject at each time, based on various measurements. We can produce an effective regimen if we can accurately predict a patient’s future blood glucose (BG) values from his/her current features. This study explores the challenges of predicting future BG by applying a number of machine learning algorithms, as well as various data preprocessing variations (corresponding to 312 [learner, preprocessed-dataset] combinations), to a new T1D dataset that contains 29,601 entries from 47 different patients. Our most accurate predictor, a weighted ensemble of two Gaussian Process Regression models, achieved a (cross-validation) [Formula: see text] loss of 2.7 mmol/L (48.65 mg/dl). This result was unexpectedly poor given that one can obtain an [Formula: see text] of 2.9 mmol/L (52.43 mg/dl) using the naive approach of simply predicting the patient’s average BG. These results suggest that the diabetes diary data that is typically collected may be insufficient to produce accurate BG prediction models; additional data may be necessary to build accurate BG prediction models over hours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".