Cited by 71Diabetes Management and ResearchPancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes Management and Education

Modeling Day-to-Day Variability of Glucose–Insulin Regulation Over 12-Week Home Use of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery

Open access
Ruan, Yue, Wilinska, Malgorzata E., Thabit, Hood, Hovorka, Roman·2017·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2016.2590498

Cites

5 of 5 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
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
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