ArticleBiomedical engineering online2010
Validation of a model-based virtual trials method for tight glycemic control in intensive care.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pilot study of the SPRINT glycemic control protocol in a Hungarian medical intensive care unit.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Trial
- Data entry errors and design for model-based tight glycemic control in critical care.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Trial
- A controlled study of the effectiveness of an adaptive closed-loop algorithm to minimize corticosteroid-induced stress hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2011Trial
- Estimating Enhanced Endogenous Glucose Production in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- The Impact of Exogenous Insulin Input on Calculating Hepatic Clearance Parameters.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Increased insulin resistance in intensive care: longitudinal retrospective analysis of glycaemic control patients in a New Zealand ICU.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2021Article
- Risk and reward: extending stochastic glycaemic control intervals to reduce workload.Biomedical engineering online · 2020Article
- Simulation Software for Assessment of Nonlinear and Adaptive Multivariable Control Algorithms: Glucose - Insulin Dynamics in Type 1 Diabetes.Computers & chemical engineering · 2019Article
- 3D kernel-density stochastic model for more personalized glycaemic control: development and in-silico validation.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
- Joint Attention Virtual Classroom: A Preliminary Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2019Article
- Optimising mechanical ventilation through model-based methods and automation.Annual reviews in control · 2019Review
- Improving glycemic control in critically ill patients: personalized care to mimic the endocrine pancreas.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Review
- Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.Biomedical engineering online · 2018Review
- Nutrition delivery of a model-based ICU glycaemic control system.Annals of intensive care · 2018Article
- Autoregressive Modeling of Drift and Random Error to Characterize a Continuous Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Sensor.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measures Can Be Used for Glycemic Control in the ICU: An In-Silico Study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Untangling glycaemia and mortality in critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Article
- Safety, efficacy and clinical generalization of the STAR protocol: a retrospective analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2016Article
- Population-Specific Models of Glycemic Control in Intensive Care: Towards a Simulation-Based Methodology for Protocol Optimization.Proceedings of the ... American Control Conference. American Control Conference · 2015Article
- Evolution of insulin sensitivity and its variability in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with hypothermia.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn-silico virtual patients and trials offer significant advantages in cost, time and safety for designing effective tight glycemic control (TGC) protocols. However, no such method has fully validated the independence of virtual patients (or resulting clinical trial predictions) from the data used to create them. This study uses matched cohorts from a TGC clinical trial to validate virtual patients and in-silico virtual trial models and methods.
methodsData from a 211 patient subset of the Glucontrol trial in Liege, Belgium. Glucontrol-A (N = 142) targeted 4.4-6.1 mmol/L and Glucontrol-B (N = 69) targeted 7.8-10.0 mmol/L. Cohorts were matched by APACHE II score, initial BG, age, weight, BMI and sex (p > 0.25). Virtual patients are created by fitting a clinically validated model to clinical data, yielding time varying insulin sensitivity profiles (SI(t)) that drives in-silico patients.Model fit and intra-patient (forward) prediction errors are used to validate individual in-silico virtual patients. Self-validation (tests A protocol on Group-A virtual patients; and B protocol on B virtual patients) and cross-validation (tests A protocol on Group-B virtual patients; and B protocol on A virtual patients) are used in comparison to clinical data to assess ability to predict clinical trial results.
resultsModel fit errors were small (<0.25%) for all patients, indicating model fitness. Median forward prediction errors were: 4.3, 2.8 and 3.5% for Group-A, Group-B and Overall (A+B), indicating individual virtual patients were accurate representations of real patients. SI and its variability were similar between cohorts indicating they were metabolically similar.Self and cross validation results were within 1-10% of the clinical data for both Group-A and Group-B. Self-validation indicated clinically insignificant errors due to model and/or clinical compliance. Cross-validation clearly showed that virtual patients enabled by identified patient-specific SI(t) profiles can accurately predict the performance of independent and different TGC protocols.
conclusionsThis study fully validates these virtual patients and in silico virtual trial methods, and clearly shows they can accurately simulate, in advance, the clinical results of a TGC protocol, enabling rapid in silico protocol design and optimization. These outcomes provide the first rigorous validation of a virtual in-silico patient and virtual trials methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.