Modeling Day-to-Day Variability of Glucose–Insulin Regulation Over 12-Week Home Use of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery
Open accessAbstract
Parameters of physiological models of glucose-insulin regulation in type 1 diabetes have previously been estimated using data collected over short periods of time and lack the quantification of day-to-day variability. We developed a new hierarchical model to relate subcutaneous insulin delivery and carbohydrate intake to continuous glucose monitoring over 12 weeks while describing day-to-day variability. Sensor glucose data sampled every 10-min, insulin aspart delivery and meal intake were analyzed from eight adults with type 1 diabetes (male/female 5/3, age 39.9 ± 9.5 years, BMI 25.4 ± 4.4kg/m 2 , HbA1c 8.4 ± 0.6% ) who underwent a 12-week home study of closed-loop insulin delivery. A compartment model comprised of five linear differential equations; model parameters were estimated using the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach within a hierarchical Bayesian model framework. Physiologically, plausible a posteriori distributions of model parameters including insulin sensitivity, time-to-peak insulin action, time-to-peak gut absorption, and carbohydrate bioavailability, and good model fit were observed. Day-to-day variability of model parameters was estimated in the range of 38-79% for insulin sensitivity and 27-48% for time-to-peak of insulin action. In conclusion, a linear Bayesian hierarchical approach is feasible to describe a 12-week glucose-insulin relationship using conventional clinical data. The model may facilitate in silico testing to aid the development of closed-loop…
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?
The intrapatient CV of 37% for Cmax and 39% for tmax are comparable with recently published human data.
“The intrapatient CV of 37% for Cmax and 39% for tmax are comparable with recently published human data.32”
From Detailed Analysis of Insulin Absorption Variability and the Tissue Response to Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Catheter Implantation in Swine (2017) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity.
Bergman, R. N., Ider, Y. Z., Bowden, C. R., & Cobelli, C. (1979) · American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism · doi:10.1152/ajpendo.1979.236.6.e667 · Cited by 1,874 · see citing works
Meal Simulation Model of the Glucose-Insulin System
Dalla Man, C., Rizza, R. A., & Cobelli, C. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2007.893506 · Cited by 955 · see citing works
Hirsch, I. B. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra040832 · Cited by 667 · see citing works
Todd, J. A. (2010) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2010.04.001 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Simulation Environment to Evaluate Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes
Wilinska, M. E., Chassin, L. J., Acerini, C. L., Allen, J. M., Dunger, D. B., & Hovorka, R. (2010) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/193229681000400117 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hauzenberger, J. R., Hipszer, B. R., Loeum, C., McCue, P. A., DeStefano, M., Torjman, M. C., Kaner, M. T., Dinesen, A. R., Chervoneva, I., Pieber, T. R., et al. (2017) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2017.0175 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“The intrapatient CV of 37% for Cmax and 39% for tmax are comparable with recently published human data.(32) This high variability may be explained by the inconsistency of the mechanical inflammatory layer surrounding the cannula of a CSII catheter.”
Result
- Authors
- Ruan, Y., Wilinska, M. E., Thabit, H., & Hovorka, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1412-1419
- ISSN
- 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2531
- OpenAlex
- W2489617990
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (100574/Z/12/Z)
- Seventh Framework Programme (247138)
- JDRF (22–2011–668)
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- type 1 diabetes, glucose-insulin regulation, artificial pancreas, day-to-day variability, Bayesian hierarchical model, compartmental model, insulin sensitivity, continuous glucose monitoring, insulin aspart, parameter estimation, in silico testing
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bayes Theorem, Blood Glucose, Computer Simulation, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Dietary Carbohydrates, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Male, Models, Biological, Models, Statistical, Feedback, Physiological
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