Cited by 63Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Enhancing automatic closed-loop glucose control in type 1 diabetes with an adaptive meal bolus calculator—in silico evaluation under intra-day variability

Open access
Herrero, Pau, Bondia, Jorge, Adewuyi, Oloruntoba, Pesl, Peter, El-Sharkawy, Mohamed, Reddy, Monika, Toumazou, Chris, Oliver, Nick +1 more·2017·Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Abstract

Background and objective Current prototypes of closed-loop systems for glucose control in type 1 diabetes mellitus, also referred to as artificial pancreas systems, require a pre-meal insulin bolus to compensate for delays in subcutaneous insulin absorption in order to avoid initial post-prandial hyperglycemia. Computing such a meal bolus is a challenging task due to the high intra-subject variability of insulin requirements. Most closed-loop systems compute this pre-meal insulin dose by a standard bolus calculation, as is commonly found in insulin pumps. However, the performance of these calculators is limited due to a lack of adaptiveness in front of dynamic changes in insulin requirements. Despite some initial attempts to include adaptation within these calculators, challenges remain.Methods In this paper we present a new technique to automatically adapt the meal-priming bolus within an artificial pancreas. The technique consists of using a novel adaptive bolus calculator based on Case-Based Reasoning and Run-To-Run control, within a closed-loop controller. Coordination between the adaptive bolus calculator and the controller was required to achieve the desired performance. For testing purposes, the clinically validated Imperial College Artificial Pancreas controller was employed. The proposed system was evaluated against itself but without bolus adaptation. The UVa-Padova T1DM v3.2 system was used to carry out a three-month in silico study on 11 adult and 11 adolescent virtual subjects taking into account inter-and intra-subject variability of insulin requirements and uncertainty on carbohydrate intake.Results Overall, the closed-loop controller enhanced by an adaptive bolus calculator improves glycemic control when compared to its non-adaptive counterpart. In particular, the following statistically significant improvements were found (non-adaptive vs. adaptive). Adults: mean glucose 142.2 ± 9.4vs. 131.8 ± 4.2mg/dl; percentage time in target [70, 180]mg/dl, 82.0 ± 7.0vs. 89.5 ± 4.2; percentage time above target 17.7 ± 7.0vs. 10.2 ± 4.1. Adolescents: mean glucose 158.2 ± 21.4vs. 140.5 ± 13.0mg/dl; percentage time in target, 65.9 ± 12.9vs. 77.5 ± 12.2; percentage time above target, 31.7 ± 13.1vs. 19.8 ± 10.2. Note that no increase in percentage time in hypoglycemia was observed.Conclusion Using an adaptive meal bolus calculator within a closed-loop control system has the potential to improve glycemic control in type 1 diabetes when compared to its non-adaptive counterpart.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.05.010

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrero, P., Bondia, J., Adewuyi, O., Pesl, P., El-Sharkawy, M., Reddy, M., Toumazou, C., Oliver, N., & Georgiou, P.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Herrero, Pau
Venue
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
146
Pages
125-131
ISSN
0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2621159547
Cited by
63
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
FWCI
6.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (100921)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_12015)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, closed-loop glucose control, artificial pancreas, case-based reasoning, run-to-run control, glycemic control, computer simulation, adolescents, adults, time in target
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Pancreas, Artificial

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