Cited by 130Diabetes Management and ResearchControl Systems and IdentificationHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Modeling the glucose sensor error

Facchinetti, Andrea, Del Favero, Simone, Sparacino, Giovanni, Castle, Jessica R., Ward, W. Kenneth, Cobelli, Claudio·2014·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are portable devices, employed in the treatment of diabetes, able to measure glucose concentration in the interstitium almost continuously for several days. However, CGM sensors are not as accurate as standard blood glucose (BG) meters. Studies comparing CGM versus BG demonstrated that CGM is affected by distortion due to diffusion processes and by time-varying systematic under/overestimations due to calibrations and sensor drifts. In addition, measurement noise is also present in CGM data. A reliable model of the different components of CGM inaccuracy with respect to BG (briefly, "sensor error") is important in several applications, e.g., design of optimal digital filters for denoising of CGM data, real-time glucose prediction, insulin dosing, and artificial pancreas control algorithms. The aim of this paper is to propose an approach to describe CGM sensor error by exploiting n multiple simultaneous CGM recordings. The model of sensor error description includes a model of blood-to-interstitial glucose diffusion process, a linear time-varying model to account for calibration and sensor drift-in-time, and an autoregressive model to describe the additive measurement noise. Model orders and parameters are identified from the n simultaneous CGM sensor recordings and BG references. While the model is applicable to any CGM sensor, here, it is used on a database of 36 datasets of type 1 diabetic adults in which n = 4 Dexcom SEVEN Plus CGM time series and frequent BG references were available simultaneously. Results demonstrates that multiple simultaneous sensor data and proper modeling allow dissecting the sensor error into its different components, distinguishing those related to physiology from those related to technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2013.2284023

Cites

32 of 32 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., Castle, J. R., Ward, W. K., & Cobelli, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2014-03
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
620-629
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2028300946
Cited by
130
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (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 › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, sensor error modeling, sensor drift, calibration error, measurement noise, autoregressive noise model, linear time-varying model, type 1 diabetes
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Calibration, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Models, Biological, Databases, Factual, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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