Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38801705›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Generalization of a Deep Learning Model for Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Hypoglycemia Prediction: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.

Jian Shao, Ying Pan, Wei-Bin Kou, Huyi Feng, Yu Zhao, Kaixin Zhou, Shao Zhong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Artificial Intelligence to Diagnose Complications of Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    Review
  15. 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

7 authors.

Jian ShaoGuangzhou Laboratory, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7828-3459
Ying PanDepartment of Endocrinology, Kunshan Hospital Affiliated to Jiangsu University, Kunshan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-6194
Wei-Bin KouDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-791X
Huyi FengChongqing Fifth People's Hospital, Chongqing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4219-1183
Yu ZhaoGuangzhou Laboratory, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4710-9989
Kaixin ZhouGuangzhou Laboratory, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4751-7248
Shao ZhongDepartment of Endocrinology, Kunshan Hospital Affiliated to Jiangsu University, Kunshan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9054-6554

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Predicting hypoglycemia while maintaining a low false alarm rate is a challenge for the wide adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in diabetes management. One small study suggested that a deep learning model based on the long short-term memory (LSTM) network had better performance in hypoglycemia prediction than traditional machine learning algorithms in European patients with type 1 diabetes. However, given that many well-recognized deep learning models perform poorly outside the training setting, it remains unclear whether the LSTM model could be generalized to different populations or patients with other diabetes subtypes. Objective: The aim of this study was to validate LSTM hypoglycemia prediction models in more diverse populations and across a wide spectrum of patients with different subtypes of diabetes. Methods: We assembled two large data sets of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The primary data set including CGM data from 192 Chinese patients with diabetes was used to develop the LSTM, support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) models for hypoglycemia prediction with a prediction horizon of 30 minutes. Hypoglycemia was categorized into mild (glucose=54-70 mg/dL) and severe (glucose<54 mg/dL) levels. The validation data set of 427 patients of European-American ancestry in the United States was used to validate the models and examine their generalizations. The predictive performance of the models was evaluated according to the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: For the difficult-to-predict mild hypoglycemia events, the LSTM model consistently achieved AUC values greater than 97% in the primary data set, with a less than 3% AUC reduction in the validation data set, indicating that the model was robust and generalizable across populations. AUC values above 93% were also achieved when the LSTM model was applied to both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the validation data set, further strengthening the generalizability of the model. Under different satisfactory levels of sensitivity for mild and severe hypoglycemia prediction, the LSTM model achieved higher specificity than the SVM and RF models, thereby reducing false alarms. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the LSTM model is robust for hypoglycemia prediction and is generalizable across populations or diabetes subtypes. Given its additional advantage of false-alarm reduction, the LSTM model is a strong candidate to be widely implemented in future CGM devices for hypoglycemia prediction.

Indexed as

blood sugarcontinuous glucose monitoringdeep learningdiabetesgeneralizationglucosehypoglycemiahypoglycemia predictionhypoglycemiclong short-term memoryLSTMmachine learningpredictionpredictivetype 1 diabetestype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38801705
PMCPMC11148841

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.