Machine learning-based glucose prediction with use of continuous glucose and physical activity monitoring data: The Maastricht Study

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 24;16(6):e0253125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253125. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Background: Closed-loop insulin delivery systems, which integrate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithms that continuously guide insulin dosing, have been shown to improve glycaemic control. The ability to predict future glucose values can further optimize such devices. In this study, we used machine learning to train models in predicting future glucose levels based on prior CGM and accelerometry data.

Methods: We used data from The Maastricht Study, an observational population-based cohort that comprises individuals with normal glucose metabolism, prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes. We included individuals who underwent >48h of CGM (n = 851), most of whom (n = 540) simultaneously wore an accelerometer to assess physical activity. A random subset of individuals was used to train models in predicting glucose levels at 15- and 60-minute intervals based on either CGM data or both CGM and accelerometer data. In the remaining individuals, model performance was evaluated with root-mean-square error (RMSE), Spearman's correlation coefficient (rho) and surveillance error grid. For a proof-of-concept translation, CGM-based prediction models were optimized and validated with the use of data from individuals with type 1 diabetes (OhioT1DM Dataset, n = 6).

Results: Models trained with CGM data were able to accurately predict glucose values at 15 (RMSE: 0.19mmol/L; rho: 0.96) and 60 minutes (RMSE: 0.59mmol/L, rho: 0.72). Model performance was comparable in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Incorporation of accelerometer data only slightly improved prediction. The error grid results indicated that model predictions were clinically safe (15 min: >99%, 60 min >98%). Our prediction models translated well to individuals with type 1 diabetes, which is reflected by high accuracy (RMSEs for 15 and 60 minutes of 0.43 and 1.73 mmol/L, respectively) and clinical safety (15 min: >99%, 60 min: >91%).

Conclusions: Machine learning-based models are able to accurately and safely predict glucose values at 15- and 60-minute intervals based on CGM data only. Future research should further optimize the models for implementation in closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

Publication types

  • Observational Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Algorithms
  • Blood Glucose / analysis*
  • Case-Control Studies
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / metabolism
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / pathology*
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / therapy
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / metabolism
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / pathology*
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / therapy
  • Exercise*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Machine Learning*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Monitoring, Ambulatory / methods*
  • Neural Networks, Computer
  • Prediabetic State / metabolism
  • Prediabetic State / pathology*
  • Prediabetic State / therapy
  • Prognosis
  • Prospective Studies

Substances

  • Blood Glucose

Grants and funding

The Maastricht Study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund via OP-Zuid, the Province of Limburg, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (grant 31O.041), Stichting De Weijerhorst (Maastricht, the Netherlands), the Pearl String Initiative Diabetes (Amsterdam, the Netherlands), School for Cardiovascular Diseases (CARIM, Maastricht, the Netherlands), School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI, Maastricht, the Netherlands), School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM, Maastricht, the Netherlands), Stichting Annadal (Maastricht, the Netherlands), Health Foundation Limburg (Maastricht, the Netherlands), and by unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag B.V. (Tilburg, the Netherlands), Novo Nordisk Farma B.V. (Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands), Sanofi-Aventis Netherlands B.V. (Gouda, the Netherlands), and Medtronic (Tolochenaz, Switzerland). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.