MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416934951 · doi:10.2196/79195

Personalized Type 1 Diabetes Management: Reinforcement Learning–Based Insulin Dosing and Glucose Forecasting

2025· article· en· W4416934951 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ernest M. Taku, Vibhuti Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 1 diabetesDosingInsulinDiabetes mellitusReinforcementReinforcement learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Optimizing insulin dosing and predicting future glucose levels for people with type 1 diabetes is challenging due to the dynamic nature of glucose metabolism. Traditional static insulin regimens fail to adapt to individual variability in diet, physical activity, stress, and metabolic fluctuations, leading to suboptimal glycemic control. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising alternative by enabling personalized, real-time insulin adjustments that improve the balance between hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Objective: This study aims to develop a deep Q-network (DQN)-based RL system that dynamically personalizes insulin dosing recommendations using continuous glucose monitoring data, meal intake, and physical activity levels. By leveraging real-time data, the model adapts to patients' evolving physiological states, enhancing glucose control and patient safety. Methods: We used the OhioT1DM dataset (2018 and 2020), which includes 8 weeks of continuous glucose measurements, insulin dosing records, and physical activity data for twelve people with type 1 diabetes. The RL agent was designed with a state representation consisting of recent blood glucose levels, insulin doses, and lifestyle factors over a 2-hour window. The 2-hour window was selected based on the known pharmacodynamic profile of rapid-acting insulin (peak action within 90-120 min), as well as the typical lag in glycemic response following meals or exercise. This window size captures both recent and delayed physiological effects while balancing data density and model stability. The action space included discrete insulin dose recommendations (eg, 0.5 U, 1 U, and 1.5 U). A reward function incentivized glucose levels within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) while penalizing extreme deviations. The DQN model was trained to maximize reward by learning optimal dosing strategies through iterative trial and error. Results: Performance evaluation was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. Time-series analysis compared actual and predicted glucose levels, demonstrating effective glucose regulation. The RL model achieved a mean glucose level of 80.06 mg/dL, with a reward score of 10 during evaluation, indicating that most glucose predictions were maintained within the desired clinical range. This suggests the model has learned to regulate blood glucose effectively through adaptive insulin dosing. The root mean square error (12.39 mg/dL) was slightly higher than the mean absolute error (9.85 mg/dL), indicating stable predictions. Additionally, the percentage time in target range was 64.06%, suggesting that the model-maintained glucose within the clinically safe range for a majority of the time. Conclusions: The DQN-based RL model demonstrated its effectiveness in personalized insulin dosing while minimizing the risk of hypo- and hyperglycemia. This suggests the model has learned to regulate blood glucose effectively through adaptive insulin dosing. This approach represents a significant advancement over conventional methods, offering a scalable and adaptive strategy for real-world diabetes management, along with enhancing clinical trust and transparency through explainability techniques.

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 score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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