Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344037›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A statistical virtual patient population for the glucoregulatory system in type 1 diabetes with integrated exercise model.

Navid Resalat, Joseph El Youssef, Nichole Tyler, Jessica Castle, Peter G Jacobs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Metabolic Models, in Silico Trials, and Algorithms.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  6. Metabolic Models, in Silico Trials, and Algorithms.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Design andJournal of diabetes science and technology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Dynamic of Glucose Homeostasis in Virtual Patients: A Comparison between Different Behaviors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Navid ResalatDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0893-7941
Joseph El YoussefDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Nichole TylerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Jessica CastleHarold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Peter G JacobsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Oregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute - The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR002369 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Cynthia D Morris, Christopher G. Slatore · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
Mitigating risk in a closed loop system by exercise detection and miniaturizationDP3DK101044 · NIDDK · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI CASTLE, JESSICA R, JACOBS, PETER G · 2013 to 2013
$2.9M
Improving glucose control with advanced technology designed for high risk patients with type 1 diabetesR01DK120367 · NIDDK · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI JACOBS, PETER G, WILSON, LEAH MEGAN · 2018 to 2021
$2.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002369NIDDK NIH HHS DP3 DK101044NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK120367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe introduce two validated single (SH) and dual hormone (DH) mathematical models that represent an in-silico virtual patient population (VPP) for type 1 diabetes (T1D). The VPP can be used to evaluate automated insulin and glucagon delivery algorithms, so-called artificial pancreas (AP) algorithms that are currently being used to help people with T1D better manage their glucose levels. We present validation results comparing these virtual patients with true clinical patients undergoing AP control and demonstrate that the virtual patients behave similarly to people with T1D.

methodsA single hormone virtual patient population (SH-VPP) was created that is comprised of eight differential equations that describe insulin kinetics, insulin dynamics and carbohydrate absorption. The parameters in this model that represent insulin sensitivity were statistically sampled from a normal distribution to create a population of virtual patients with different levels of insulin sensitivity. A dual hormone virtual patient population (DH-VPP) extended this SH-VPP by incorporating additional equations to represent glucagon kinetics and glucagon dynamics. The DH-VPP is comprised of thirteen differential equations and a parameter representing glucagon sensitivity, which was statistically sampled from a normal distribution to create virtual patients with different levels of glucagon sensitivity. We evaluated the SH-VPP and DH-VPP on a clinical data set of 20 people with T1D who participated in a 3.5-day outpatient AP study. Twenty virtual patients were matched with the 20 clinical patients by total daily insulin requirements and body weight. The identical meals given during the AP study were given to the virtual patients and the identical AP control algorithm that was used to control the glucose of the virtual patients was used on the clinical patients. We compared percent time in target range (70-180 mg/dL), time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) for both the virtual patients and the actual patients.

resultsThe subjects in the SH-VPP performed similarly vs. the actual patients (time in range: 78.1 ± 5.1% vs. 74.3 ± 8.1%, p = 0.11; time in hypoglycemia: 3.4 ± 1.3% vs. 2.8 ± 1.7%, p = 0.23). The subjects in the DH-VPP also performed similarly vs. the actual patients (time in range: 75.6 ± 5.5% vs. 71.9 ± 10.9%, p = 0.13; time in hypoglycemia: 0.9 ± 0.8% vs. 1.3 ± 1%, p = 0.19). While the VPPs tended to over-estimate the time in range relative to actual patients, the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionsWe have verified that a SH-VPP and a DH-VPP performed comparably with actual patients undergoing AP control using an identical control algorithm. The SH-VPP and DH-VPP may be used as a simulator for pre-evaluation of T1D control algorithms.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1InsulinModels, BiologicalAdultAgedBlood GlucoseFemaleGlucagonHumansKineticsMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseGlucagonInsulin

Identifiers

PMID31344037
PMCPMC6657828
OpenAlexW2963898471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.