Forecasting of Glucose Levels and Hypoglycemic Events: Head-to-Head Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Data-Driven Algorithms Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Only
Open Access
Abstract
In type 1 diabetes management, the availability of algorithms capable of accurately forecasting future blood glucose (BG) concentrations and hypoglycemic episodes could enable proactive therapeutic actions, e.g., the consumption of carbohydrates to mitigate, or even avoid, an impending critical event. The only input of this kind of algorithm is often continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor data, because other signals (such as injected insulin, ingested carbs, and physical activity) are frequently unavailable. Several predictive algorithms fed by CGM data only have been proposed in the literature, but they were assessed using datasets originated by different experimental protocols, making a comparison of their relative merits difficult. The aim of the present work was to perform a head-to-head comparison of thirty different linear and nonlinear predictive algorithms using the same dataset, given by 124 CGM traces collected over 10 days with the newest Dexcom G6 sensor available on the market and considering a 30-min prediction horizon. We considered the state-of-the art methods, investigating, in particular, linear black-box methods (autoregressive; autoregressive moving-average; and autoregressive integrated moving-average, ARIMA) and nonlinear machine-learning methods (support vector regression, SVR; regression random forest; feed-forward neural network, fNN; and long short-term memory neural network). For each method, the prediction accuracy and hypoglycemia detection capabilities were assessed using either population or individualized model parameters. As far as prediction accuracy is concerned, the results show that the best linear algorithm (individualized ARIMA) provides accuracy comparable to that of the best nonlinear algorithm (individualized fNN), with root mean square errors of 22.15 and 21.52 mg/dL, respectively. As far as hypoglycemia detection is concerned, the best linear algorithm (individualized ARIMA) provided precision = 64%, recall = 82%, and one false alarm/day, comparable to the best nonlinear technique (population SVR): precision = 63%, recall = 69%, and 0.5 false alarms/day. In general, the head-to-head comparison of the thirty algorithms fed by CGM data only made using a wide dataset shows that individualized linear models are more effective than population ones, while no significant advantages seem to emerge when employing nonlinear methodologies.Keywords
Funding Information
- Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (RBSI14JYM2)
This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- Real-Time Improvement of Continuous Glucose Monitoring AccuracyDiabetes Care, 2013
- A New Index to Optimally Design and Compare Continuous Glucose Monitoring Glucose Prediction AlgorithmsDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2011
- Real-Time Hypoglycemia Prediction Suite Using Continuous Glucose MonitoringDiabetes Care, 2010
- Prevention of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Using Predictive Alarm Algorithms and Insulin Pump SuspensionDiabetes Care, 2010
- Support vector regression based residual control chartsJournal of Applied Statistics, 2010
- Artificial Neural Network Algorithm for Online Glucose Prediction from Continuous Glucose MonitoringDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2010
- Hypoglycemia Prediction and Detection Using Optimal EstimationDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2005
- Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR ModelingJournal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 2003
- Determination of the spread parameter in the Gaussian kernel for classification and regressionNeurocomputing, 2003
- Comparison of Neural Network and Multiple Linear Regression as Dissolution PredictorsDrug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2003