Model of glucose sensor error components: identification and assessment for new Dexcom G4 generation devices.

It is clinically well-established that minimally invasive subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors can significantly improve diabetes treatment. However, CGM readings are still not as reliable as those provided by standard fingerprick blood glucose (BG) meters. In addition to unavoid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Vol. 53; no. 12; pp. 1259 - 1270
Autores principales: Facchinetti, Andrea, Del Favero, Simone, Sparacino, Giovanni, Cobelli, Claudio
Formato: equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Dec2015
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=111243897&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 111243897
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01400118
        PO0
      jtl: Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
      issn: 01400118
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2015
      vid: 53
      iid: 12
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        111243897
        111243897
        NLM25416850
        111243897
        10.1007/s11517-014-1226-y
        NLM25416850
        111243897
      ppf: 1259
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Model of glucose sensor error components: identification and assessment for new Dexcom G4 generation devices.
      aug:
        au:
          Facchinetti, Andrea
          Del Favero, Simone
          Sparacino, Giovanni
          Cobelli, Claudio
        affil: Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Via G.Gradenigo 6/B 35131 Padua Italy
      sug:
        subj:
          Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring Standards
          Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring Equipment and Supplies
          Blood Glucose Analysis
          Equipment Failure
          Female
          Male
          Adult
          Diabetes Mellitus Blood
          Algorithms
          Middle Age
          Kinetics
          Diabetes Mellitus Therapy
          Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring Methods
          Calibration
          Models, Theoretical
          Human
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Female
          Male
      ab: It is clinically well-established that minimally invasive subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors can significantly improve diabetes treatment. However, CGM readings are still not as reliable as those provided by standard fingerprick blood glucose (BG) meters. In addition to unavoidable random measurement noise, other components of sensor error are distortions due to the blood-to-interstitial glucose kinetics and systematic under-/overestimations associated with the sensor calibration process. A quantitative assessment of these components, and the ability to simulate them with precision, is of paramount importance in the design of CGM-based applications, e.g., the artificial pancreas (AP), and in their in silico testing. In the present paper, we identify and assess a model of sensor error of for two sensors, i.e., the G4 Platinum (G4P) and the advanced G4 for artificial pancreas studies (G4AP), both belonging to the recently presented "fourth" generation of Dexcom CGM sensors but different in their data processing. Results are also compared with those obtained by a sensor belonging to the previous, "third," generation by the same manufacturer, the SEVEN Plus (7P). For each sensor, the error model is derived from 12-h CGM recordings of two sensors used simultaneously and BG samples collected in parallel every 15 ± 5 min. Thanks to technological innovations, G4P outperforms 7P, with average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 11.1 versus 14.2%, respectively, and lowering of about 30% the error of each component. Thanks to the more sophisticated data processing algorithms, G4AP resulted more reliable than G4P, with a MARD of 10.0%, and a further decrease to 20% of the error due to blood-to-interstitial glucose kinetics.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        equations & formulas
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N