MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416792317 · doi:10.2196/72769

Toward a Personalized Basal Tuner for Detecting Basal Rate Inaccuracies in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Without Meal Data: Algorithm Development and Retrospective Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4416792317 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Gasca García, Hood Thabit, Paul W. Nutter, Simon Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsType 1 diabetesClinical PracticeTunerBasal (medicine)Retrospective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusBasal insulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Basal rate (BR) adjustment is crucial for managing type 1 diabetes mellitus, accounting for 30% to 50% of total daily insulin needs. All current closed-loop systems revert to the user's usual pump BR (known as manual mode) in the event of closed loop failure. Furthermore, access to closed-loop systems remains relatively low in low- and middle-income countries and among those without suitable health insurance. Accurately adjusting the BR remains challenging, leading to hypo- or hyperglycemia, and research on optimizing the BR is limited. Objective: This study proposed an adaptive algorithm that uses continuous glucose monitoring data to identify BR inaccuracies without requiring meal intake information. Methods: The OhioT1DM dataset formed the basis for implementing this methodology. Each composite day was generated by excluding bolus insulin profiles lacking meal intake information and by calculating hourly blood glucose (BG) relative levels along with their corresponding reliability measures, enabling assessment of deviations from the recommended BR (ie, a BG relative change of 0 mg/dL). Both a noninferiority analysis and a classification precision metric were used to assess the practicality of this approach compared to using meal data. Results: Data from 12 participants showed noninferiority of the no-meal method: using a 20% noninferiority margin on absolute BG relative change, 9 of 12 participants met the criterion (1-sided P<.05). Classification precision was 73.9% (139/188) of meals correctly classified on average per participant (SD 11.8%; 95% CI 67.2%-79.7%). The daily cumulative BG average was 200.6 mg/dL (SD 61.7 mg/dL; 11.1 mmol/L, SD 3.4 mmol/L; 95% CI 161.4-239.8 mg/dL), with peak values reaching 270.15 mg/dL (14.99 mmol/L). Furthermore, 99.3% (286/288) of the BG relative values (SD 0.5%; 95% CI 97.5%-99.8%) that were unaffected by external factors were associated with incorrect BR settings, with deviations ranging from -25.5 to 46 mg/dL (-1.58 to 2.59 mmol/L). Conclusions: Current strategies to optimize BR settings are inadequate, and our approach of a personalized basal tuner (PBT) helps better analyze BR without relying on meal intake information. Indeed, without an optimally set BR, in the event of the closed loop reverting to manual mode, patients may be exposed to persistent hypo- or hyperglycemia, leading to safety and efficacy issues. Future work will focus on generating BR recommendations through the application of this algorithm in clinical practice to assist clinicians in setting BR in low- and middle-income countries, where closed-loop systems are not prevalent, to help increase time in range.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207