Cited by 80Diabetes Management and ResearchElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Model of glucose sensor error components: identification and assessment for new Dexcom G4 generation devices

Facchinetti, Andrea, Del Favero, Simone, Sparacino, Giovanni, Cobelli, Claudio·2015·Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

Abstract

It is clinically well-established that minimally invasive subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors can significantly improve diabetes treatment. However, CGM readings are still not as reliable as those provided by standard fingerprick blood glucose (BG) meters. In addition to unavoidable random measurement noise, other components of sensor error are distortions due to the blood-to-interstitial glucose kinetics and systematic under-/overestimations associated with the sensor calibration process. A quantitative assessment of these components, and the ability to simulate them with precision, is of paramount importance in the design of CGM-based applications, e.g., the artificial pancreas (AP), and in their in silico testing. In the present paper, we identify and assess a model of sensor error of for two sensors, i.e., the G4 Platinum (G4P) and the advanced G4 for artificial pancreas studies (G4AP), both belonging to the recently presented "fourth" generation of Dexcom CGM sensors but different in their data processing. Results are also compared with those obtained by a sensor belonging to the previous, "third," generation by the same manufacturer, the SEVEN Plus (7P). For each sensor, the error model is derived from 12-h CGM recordings of two sensors used simultaneously and BG samples collected in parallel every 15 ± 5 min. Thanks to technological innovations, G4P outperforms 7P, with average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 11.1 versus 14.2%, respectively, and lowering of about 30% the error of each component. Thanks to the more sophisticated data processing algorithms, G4AP resulted more reliable than G4P, with a MARD of 10.0%, and a further decrease to 20% of the error due to blood-to-interstitial glucose kinetics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11517-014-1226-y

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Facchinetti, A., Del Favero, S., Sparacino, G., & Cobelli, C.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Cobelli, Claudio
Venue
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Published
2014-11-23
Volume
53
Issue
12
Pages
1259-1269
ISSN
  • 0140-0118 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-0444
OpenAlex
W2054083908
Cited by
80
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, sensor calibration errors, mean absolute relative difference, artificial pancreas, in silico testing, diabetes mellitus
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Calibration, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Kinetics, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Equipment Failure Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review