Noninvasive Glucose Measurement by Monitoring of Scattering Coefficient During Oral Glucose Tolerance Tests
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring by means of optical glucose sensors would allow patients with diabetes to check their metabolic control to their convenience. In an earlier study, we showed that noninvasive glucose monitoring is feasible for rapid changes in blood glucose by means of measuring the scattering coefficient of human skin. In this study, we investigated whether also slower changes in blood glucose, this time induced by an oral glucose load, can also be monitored by this approach. METHODS: Five healthy subjects and 13 patients with type 2 diabetes have been given a 75-g oral glucose load. Portable noninvasive systems were used to measure the skin tissue scattering coefficient. For this purpose, two optical sensor heads were attached directly to the skin of each volunteer. Light was applied to the skin and the reflected light intensity was registered. RESULTS: In 8 of 10 measurements, correlation of changes in scattering coefficient with changes in glycemia was acceptable. In 19 of 26 measurements (73%) of patients with type 2 diabetes the observed changes in the scattering coefficient also correlated in acceptable manner. The accordance between the simultaneous measurements of the two sensor heads was acceptable in 13 of 18 volunteers and patients studied. There were virtually no differences in the quality of the measurements between healthy volunteers and patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that also slow changes in blood glucose induced by an oral glucose load can be monitored by registration of scattering coefficient changes. It remains to be elucidated why this has not been possible in all experiments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
OCT is sensitive to motion artifact due to the inhomogeneity of tissue.
“However, OCT is sensitive to motion artifact due to the inhomogeneity of tissue 115,116.”
From Glucose biosensors in clinical practice: principles, limits and perspectives of currently used devices (2022) · cites this paper as [116]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Heinemann, L., Krämer, U., Klötzer, H.-M., Hein, M., Volz, D., Hermann, M., Heise, T., & Rave, K.
- Affiliations
- Profil Institute for Metabolic Research (DE)
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-220
- ISSN
- 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8593
- OpenAlex
- W2178117222
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Spectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
- Keywords
- non-invasive glucose monitoring, scattering coefficient, oral glucose tolerance test, type 2 diabetes, optical glucose sensor, glycemic control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Extracellular Space, Glucose, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Light, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Reference Values, Scattering, Radiation, Skin, Skin Temperature, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Biosensing Techniques
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