Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29658779›Full record

Trial reportDiabetes technology & therapeutics2018

Fully Closed-Loop Multiple Model Probabilistic Predictive Controller Artificial Pancreas Performance in Adolescents and Adults in a Supervised Hotel Setting.

Gregory P Forlenza, Faye M Cameron, Trang T Ly, David Lam, Daniel P Howsmon, Nihat Baysal, Georgia Kulina, Laurel Messer, Paula Clinton, Camilla Levister and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Early Stages of Automated Insulin Delivery.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    Review
  8. Metabolic Models, in Silico Trials, and Algorithms.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  9. Early Stages of Automated Insulin Delivery.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Metabolic Models, in Silico Trials, and Algorithms.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Diabetes Technology Meeting 2021.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory P Forlenza1 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Barbara Davis Center , Aurora, Colorado.
Faye M Cameron2 Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute , Troy, New York.
Trang T Ly3 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University , Palo Alto, California.
David Lam4 Division of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York City, New York.
Daniel P Howsmon2 Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute , Troy, New York.
Nihat Baysal2 Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute , Troy, New York.
Georgia Kulina4 Division of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York City, New York.
Laurel Messer1 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Barbara Davis Center , Aurora, Colorado.
Paula Clinton3 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University , Palo Alto, California.
Camilla Levister4 Division of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York City, New York.
Stephen D Patek5 Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia , Charlottesville, Virginia.
Carol J Levy4 Division of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York City, New York.
R Paul Wadwa1 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Barbara Davis Center , Aurora, Colorado.
David M Maahs1 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Barbara Davis Center , Aurora, Colorado.
B Wayne Bequette2 Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute , Troy, New York.
Bruce A Buckingham3 Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University , Palo Alto, California.
Stanford University · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

NYR-Diabetes Research Center (NYR-DRC)P30DK020541 · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · 2025 to 2025
$2.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK094712NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK020541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInitial Food and Drug Administration-approved artificial pancreas (AP) systems will be hybrid closed-loop systems that require prandial meal announcements and will not eliminate the burden of premeal insulin dosing. Multiple model probabilistic predictive control (MMPPC) is a fully closed-loop system that uses probabilistic estimation of meals to allow for automated meal detection. In this study, we describe the safety and performance of the MMPPC system with announced and unannounced meals in a supervised hotel setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThe Android phone-based AP system with remote monitoring was tested for 72 h in six adults and four adolescents across three clinical sites with daily exercise and meal challenges involving both three announced (manual bolus by patient) and six unannounced (no bolus by patient) meals. Safety criteria were predefined. Controller aggressiveness was adapted daily based on prior hypoglycemic events.

resultsMean 24-h continuous glucose monitor (CGM) was 157.4 ± 14.4 mg/dL, with 63.6 ± 9.2% of readings between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 2.9 ± 2.3% of readings <70 mg/dL, and 9.0 ± 3.9% of readings >250 mg/dL. Moderate hyperglycemia was relatively common with 24.6 ± 6.2% of readings between 180 and 250 mg/dL, primarily within 3 h after a meal. Overnight mean CGM was 139.6 ± 27.6 mg/dL, with 77.9 ± 16.4% between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 3.0 ± 4.5% <70 mg/dL, 17.1 ± 14.9% between 180 and 250 mg/dL, and 2.0 ± 4.5%> 250 mg/dL. Postprandial hyperglycemia was more common for unannounced meals compared with announced meals (4-h postmeal CGM 197.8 ± 44.1 vs. 140.6 ± 35.0 mg/dL; P < 0.001). No participants met safety stopping criteria.

conclusionsMMPPC was safe in a supervised setting despite meal and exercise challenges. Further studies are needed in a less supervised environment.

Indexed as

Pancreas, ArtificialAdolescentAdultBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinMaleTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinArtificial pancreasClinical trialFully closed-loopType 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29658779
PMCPMC5963546
OpenAlexW2800026123

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.