ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning glucose forecasting models for septic patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A digital twin for tracking and forecasting glycemia with septic patients in ICUs.npj metabolic health and disease · 2026Article
- Biomarker-Guided Drug Delivery Systems and Oral Bioavailability Enhancement.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sepsis-induced glucose fluctuations present major challenges in critical care, underscoring the importance of accurate glucose monitoring and forecasting to improve patient outcomes. This study introduces a suite of forecasting models trained using continuous glucose monitoring data from a diabetic patient with sepsis (19,621 data points). The models include four transformer-based ones (iTransformer, Crossformer, PatchTST, FEDformer), a dynamic linear model (DLinear), and an ensemble zero-shot inference method leveraging ChatGPT-4. Model performance was evaluated for 15-, 30-, and 60-minute prediction horizons with an optimized 30-minute lookback window. PatchTST achieved the lowest mean maximum percentage error (MMPE) for short-term forecasts (3.0% at 15 minutes), while DLinear excelled at longer horizons (7.46% and 14.41% MMPE at 30 and 60 minutes, respectively). The ensemble ChatGPT-4 approach also showed competitive results. Overall, this work offers a toolbox of advanced forecasting models for ICU glucose prediction and management. The comprehensive comparison among the models highlights the promise of machine learning models-particularly DLinear and PatchTST-in supporting glucose monitoring and ultimately digital twin implementations, paving the way toward personalized and adaptive glycemic control in septic patients.
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.