Cited by 15Diabetes Management and ResearchAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Evaluation of model complexity in model predictive control within an exercise-enabled artificial pancreas

Open access
Resalat, Navid, Youssef, Joseph El, Reddy, Ravi, Jacobs, Peter G.·2017·IFAC-PapersOnLine

Abstract

Model predictive control (MPC) algorithms have been used often within artificial pancreas control systems both in-silico and in clinical studies. Increasingly complex models in the controller can more accurately predict the glycemic response, but they introduce increased computational complexity which can be challenging to implement especially within an embedded environment where computational resources are limited. Less complex models are also preferable in that they can be evaluated in silico against more complex plant models. There has not yet been an evaluation of how the complexity of models used within an MPC impacts performance within an artificial pancreas. A model within an artificial pancreas MPC algorithm should be as complex as necessary to accurately predict a glycemic response to meals, exercise, stress, and other disturbances, but not overly complex. In this paper, we evaluate four glucoregulatory models used within an MPC, starting with a 4-state model and increasing in complexity up to six states. We evaluate the complexity using an in-silico population derived from a more complex glucoregulatory model (9 state variables). We assess how complexity of the model impacts performance both in terms of standard control metrics such as settling time and overshoot as well as clinically relevant metrics such as percent time in euglycemia (glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dl), percent time in hypoglycemia (70 mg/dl) and percent time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl). We find that model complexity matters far less than how well the model parameters match the individual subjects. When the simplest model is used, but fit to an individual subject’s data, it performed comparably with more complex models. We selected a middle-complexity model and integrated it into our previously published exercise-enabled MPC model and evaluated it in a virtual patient population both with and without the exercise model present. We found that increasing complexity by modeling exercise is critical to help enable early insulin shut-off by the controller to avoid hypoglycemia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2270

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Resalat, N., Youssef, J. E., Reddy, R., & Jacobs, P. G.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Jacobs, Peter G.
Venue
IFAC-PapersOnLine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
7756-7761
ISSN
2405-8963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765392510
Cited by
15
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
IFAC-PapersOnLine (publishedVersion)
Funders
Oregon Health and Science University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
model predictive control, artificial pancreas, model complexity, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, virtual patient population, embedded control systems, computational complexity

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