TY - JOUR
T1 - Incorporating Glucose Variability into Glucose Forecasting Accuracy Assessment Using the New Glucose Variability Impact Index and the Prediction Consistency Index
T2 - An LSTM Case Example
AU - Mosquera-Lopez, Clara
AU - Jacobs, Peter G.
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust under Grant 2018PG-T1D001, JDRF grant 1-SRA-2019-820-S-B, and NIH/NIDDK grant R01DK120367-01.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Diabetes Technology Society.
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Background: In this work, we developed glucose forecasting algorithms trained and evaluated on a large dataset of free-living people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using closed-loop (CL) and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapies; and we demonstrate how glucose variability impacts accuracy. We introduce the glucose variability impact index (GVII) and the glucose prediction consistency index (GPCI) to assess the accuracy of prediction algorithms. Methods: A long-short-term-memory (LSTM) neural network was designed to predict glucose up to 60 minutes in the future using continuous glucose measurements and insulin data collected from 175 people with T1D (41,318 days) and evaluated on 75 people (11,333 days) from the Tidepool Big Data Donation Dataset. LSTM was compared with two naïve forecasting algorithms as well as Ridge linear regression and a random forest using root-mean-square error (RMSE). Parkes error grid quantified clinical accuracy. Regression analysis was used to derive the GVII and GPCI. Results: The LSTM had highest accuracy and best GVII and GPCI. RMSE for CL was 19.8 ± 3.2 and 33.2 ± 5.4 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. RMSE for SAP was 19.6 ± 3.8 and 33.1 ± 7.3 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively; 99.6% and 97.6% of predictions were within zones A+B of the Parkes error grid at 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. Glucose variability was strongly correlated with RMSE (R≥0.64, P < 0.001); GVII and GPCI demonstrated a means to compare algorithms across datasets with different glucose variability. Conclusions: The LSTM model was accurate on a large real-world free-living dataset. Glucose variability should be considered when assessing prediction accuracy using indices such as GVII and GPCI.
AB - Background: In this work, we developed glucose forecasting algorithms trained and evaluated on a large dataset of free-living people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using closed-loop (CL) and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapies; and we demonstrate how glucose variability impacts accuracy. We introduce the glucose variability impact index (GVII) and the glucose prediction consistency index (GPCI) to assess the accuracy of prediction algorithms. Methods: A long-short-term-memory (LSTM) neural network was designed to predict glucose up to 60 minutes in the future using continuous glucose measurements and insulin data collected from 175 people with T1D (41,318 days) and evaluated on 75 people (11,333 days) from the Tidepool Big Data Donation Dataset. LSTM was compared with two naïve forecasting algorithms as well as Ridge linear regression and a random forest using root-mean-square error (RMSE). Parkes error grid quantified clinical accuracy. Regression analysis was used to derive the GVII and GPCI. Results: The LSTM had highest accuracy and best GVII and GPCI. RMSE for CL was 19.8 ± 3.2 and 33.2 ± 5.4 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. RMSE for SAP was 19.6 ± 3.8 and 33.1 ± 7.3 mg/dL for 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively; 99.6% and 97.6% of predictions were within zones A+B of the Parkes error grid at 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons, respectively. Glucose variability was strongly correlated with RMSE (R≥0.64, P < 0.001); GVII and GPCI demonstrated a means to compare algorithms across datasets with different glucose variability. Conclusions: The LSTM model was accurate on a large real-world free-living dataset. Glucose variability should be considered when assessing prediction accuracy using indices such as GVII and GPCI.
KW - Type 1 diabetes
KW - glucose prediction
KW - glucose prediction consistency index
KW - glucose variability
KW - glucose variability impact index
KW - long-short-term-memory neural network
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114613921&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114613921&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/19322968211042621
DO - 10.1177/19322968211042621
M3 - Article
C2 - 34490793
AN - SCOPUS:85114613921
SN - 1932-2968
VL - 16
SP - 7
EP - 18
JO - Journal of diabetes science and technology
JF - Journal of diabetes science and technology
IS - 1
ER -