Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637358›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Comparative Simulation Study of Glucose Control Methods Designed for Use in the Intensive Care Unit Setting via a Novel Controller Scoring Metric.

Jeremy DeJournett, Leon DeJournett

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05386849 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Demonstration of an Artificial Intelligence Based Closed Loop Glucose Control System as a Therapeutic Modality in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorIdeal Medical TechnologiesRan2022 to 2022Enrolled3ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2ArmsFUSION closed loop glucose control system
NCT05644730 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Demonstration of an Artificial Intelligence Based Closed Loop Glucose Control System as a Therapeutic Modality in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetic Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorIdeal Medical TechnologiesRan2022 to 2024Enrolled7ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2ArmsFusion closed loop glucose control system
NCT07646067 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Demonstration of an Expert Rule-Based Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System for People With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

TypeinterventionalSponsorIdeal Medical TechnologiesRan2026 to 2027Enrolled6ConditionsType 1 Diabetes, Type 2 Diabetes, Stress Induced HyperglycemiaArmsFUSION closed loop glucose control system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jeremy DeJournett1 Ideal Medical Technologies Inc, Asheville, NC, USA.
Leon DeJournett1 Ideal Medical Technologies Inc, Asheville, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality rates and thereby decrease health care expenditures. To evaluate what constitutes effective glucose control, typically several metrics are reported, including time in range, time in mild and severe hypoglycemia, coefficient of variation, and others. To date, there is no one metric that combines all of these individual metrics to give a number indicative of overall performance. We proposed a composite metric that combines 5 commonly reported metrics, and we used this composite metric to compare 6 glucose controllers.

methodsWe evaluated the following controllers: Ideal Medical Technologies (IMT) artificial-intelligence-based controller, Yale protocol, Glucommander, Wintergerst et al PID controller, GRIP, and NICE-SUGAR. We evaluated each controller across 80 simulated patients, 4 clinically relevant exogenous dextrose infusions, and one nonclinical infusion as a test of the controller's ability to handle difficult situations. This gave a total of 2400 5-day simulations, and 585 604 individual glucose values for analysis. We used a random walk sensor error model that gave a 10% MARD. For each controller, we calculated severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL), mild hypoglycemia (40-69 mg/dL), normoglycemia (70-140 mg/dL), hyperglycemia (>140 mg/dL), and coefficient of variation (CV), as well as our novel controller metric.

resultsFor the controllers tested, we achieved the following median values for our novel controller scoring metric: IMT: 88.1, YALE: 46.7, GLUC: 47.2, PID: 50, GRIP: 48.2, NICE: 46.4.

conclusionThe novel scoring metric employed in this study shows promise as a means for evaluating new and existing ICU-based glucose controllers, and it could be used in the future to compare results of glucose control studies in critical care. The IMT AI-based glucose controller demonstrated the most consistent performance results based on this new metric.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputer SimulationDecision Support TechniquesIntensive Care UnitsModels, BiologicalBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCritical CareGlucoseHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinMonitoring, AmbulatoryPredictive Value of TestsBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinartificial intelligenceclosed loop controlglucometricsglucoseintensive care unitknowledge-based system

Identifiers

PMID28637358
PMCPMC5951048
OpenAlexW2648864304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.