Comparative Analysis of Predictive Interstitial Glucose Level Classification Models.

backgroundNew methods of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provide real-time alerts for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and rapid fluctuations of glucose levels, thereby improving glycemic control, which is especially crucial during meals and physical activity. However, complex CGM systems pose challenges for individuals with diabetes and healthcare professionals, particularly when interpreting rapid glucose level changes, dealing with sensor delays (approximately a 10 min difference between interstitial and plasma glucose readings), and addressing potential malfunctions. The development of advanced predictive glucose level classification models becomes imperative for optimizing insulin dosing and managing daily activities.

methodsThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of three different predictive models for the glucose level classification: (1) an autoregressive integrated moving average model (ARIMA), (2) logistic regression, and (3) long short-term memory networks (LSTM). The performance of these models was evaluated in predicting hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL), euglycemia (70-180 mg/dL), and hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) classes 15 min and 1 h ahead. More specifically, the confusion matrices were obtained and metrics such as precision, recall, and accuracy were computed for each model at each predictive horizon.

resultsAs expected, ARIMA underperformed the other models in predicting hyper- and hypoglycemia classes for both the 15 min and 1 h horizons. For the 15 min forecast horizon, the performance of logistic regression was the highest of all the models for all glycemia classes, with recall rates of 96% for hyper, 91% for norm, and 98% for hypoglycemia. For the 1 h forecast horizon, the LSTM model turned out to be the best for hyper- and hypoglycemia classes, achieving recall values of 85% and 87% respectively.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that different models may have varying strengths and weaknesses in predicting glucose level classes, and the choice of model should be carefully considered based on the specific requirements and context of the clinical application. The logistic regression model proved to be more accurate for the next 15 min, particularly in predicting hypoglycemia. However, the LSTM model outperformed logistic regression in predicting glucose level class for the next hour. Future research could explore hybrid models or ensemble approaches that combine the strengths of multiple models to further enhance the accuracy and reliability of glucose predictions.