Comparison of Software Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data

Agnese Piersanti, Francesco Giurato, L. Burattini, A. Tura, M. Morettini
{"title":"Comparison of Software Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data","authors":"Agnese Piersanti, Francesco Giurato, L. Burattini, A. Tura, M. Morettini","doi":"10.1109/MeMeA52024.2021.9478698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) systems in the management of diabetes is rapidly growing and represents an eligible technology to overcome the limitations of self-monitoring of blood glucose. However, not complete standardization of the CGM data analyses methodologies is limiting the potential of these devices. In the last few years, different software solutions have been proposed to find a common pattern for making CGM data analysis results more interpretable and reproducible. The aim of this study was to compare two of the newest open-source software packages available for CGM data analysis, GLU and iglu. To perform the comparison, CGM data of 9 subjects with type 1 diabetes coming from the open D1NAMO dataset have been analyzed with both software. Metrics available both in GLU and iglu have been compared, namely: Area Under the Curve (AUC), Time Above Range (TAR), Time Below Range (TBR), Time in Range (TIR) and Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD). Mean values for GLU and iglu were: AUC (170 ± 23 vs. 165 ± 27 mg•dl-1); TAR (40 ± 17 vs. 38 ± 21 %); TBR (6 ± 7 % in both); TIR (54 ± 18 vs. 60 ± 21 %), MAD (43 ± 20 vs. 67 ± 28 mg•dl-1). Only MAD was found statistically different between GLU and iglu. In conclusion, this comparison provided an overview of the graphical and computational aspects in CGM analysis provided by GLU and iglu software packages, which could be useful to researchers and clinicians to find a transparent and consistent way of interpreting CGM data.","PeriodicalId":429222,"journal":{"name":"2021 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA)","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/MeMeA52024.2021.9478698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) systems in the management of diabetes is rapidly growing and represents an eligible technology to overcome the limitations of self-monitoring of blood glucose. However, not complete standardization of the CGM data analyses methodologies is limiting the potential of these devices. In the last few years, different software solutions have been proposed to find a common pattern for making CGM data analysis results more interpretable and reproducible. The aim of this study was to compare two of the newest open-source software packages available for CGM data analysis, GLU and iglu. To perform the comparison, CGM data of 9 subjects with type 1 diabetes coming from the open D1NAMO dataset have been analyzed with both software. Metrics available both in GLU and iglu have been compared, namely: Area Under the Curve (AUC), Time Above Range (TAR), Time Below Range (TBR), Time in Range (TIR) and Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD). Mean values for GLU and iglu were: AUC (170 ± 23 vs. 165 ± 27 mg•dl-1); TAR (40 ± 17 vs. 38 ± 21 %); TBR (6 ± 7 % in both); TIR (54 ± 18 vs. 60 ± 21 %), MAD (43 ± 20 vs. 67 ± 28 mg•dl-1). Only MAD was found statistically different between GLU and iglu. In conclusion, this comparison provided an overview of the graphical and computational aspects in CGM analysis provided by GLU and iglu software packages, which could be useful to researchers and clinicians to find a transparent and consistent way of interpreting CGM data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
连续血糖监测数据分析软件包的比较
连续血糖监测(CGM)系统在糖尿病管理中的应用正在迅速增长,它代表了一种克服自我血糖监测局限性的合适技术。然而,CGM数据分析方法的不完全标准化限制了这些设备的潜力。在过去几年中,已经提出了不同的软件解决方案,以找到一种通用模式,使CGM数据分析结果更具可解释性和可重复性。本研究的目的是比较两种最新的开源软件包,GLU和iglu可用于CGM数据分析。为了进行比较,我们使用两种软件对来自D1NAMO开放数据集的9例1型糖尿病患者的CGM数据进行分析。GLU和iglu可用的指标进行了比较,即:曲线下面积(AUC),范围以上时间(TAR),范围以下时间(TBR),范围内时间(TIR)和平均绝对偏差(MAD)。GLU和iglu的平均值分别为AUC(170±23 vs 165±27 mg•dl-1);TAR(40±17% vs. 38±21%);TBR(6±7%);TIR(54±18比60±21%),MAD(43±20比67±28 mg•dl-1)。GLU和iglu之间只有MAD有统计学差异。总之,这一比较提供了GLU和iglu软件包提供的CGM分析的图形和计算方面的概述,这可能有助于研究人员和临床医生找到一种透明和一致的方法来解释CGM数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ML algorithms for the assessment of prescribed physical exercises Measuring the Effect of Rhythmic Auditory Stimuli on Parkinsonian Gait in Challenging Settings A preliminary study on the dynamic characterization of a MEMS microgripper for biomedical applications Gait Parameters of Elderly Subjects in Single-task and Dual-task with three different MIMU set-ups The use of cognitive training and tDCS for the treatment of an high potential subject: a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1