Time in range prediction using the experimental mobile application in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Time in range (TIR) is a promising indicator of glycemic control used for evaluation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The current problem is the assessment and prediction of TIR for patients who use self-monitoring of blood glucose (SМBG) corresponding low CGM availability for the majority of diabetic patients.

AIM: To develop a predictive model of TIR for patients with T1DM based on data of the experimental mobile application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis of 1253 professional CGM profiles of patients with T1DM was performed. On the base of included records, TIR(CGM) was calculated and training models of 7-point SMBG profiles were generated. SMBG profiles’re loaded into the developed experimental mobile application that calculated standard glycemic control parameters. The dataset was divided into main and test samples (80 and 20%). For the main sample, the following methods’re used to develop predictive models: simple linear regression (SLR), multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural network (ANN). The effectiveness of the developed models was assessed on the test sample with the calculation of the mean absolute error (MAE), the root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS: The 568 CGM profiles’re included in the study. TIR in the main group (n=454) — 45 [33; 65]%, in the test group (n=114) — 43 [33; 58]%. The most significant predictors of the regression models were the derived TIR (dTIR), p<0,001; derived time below range level 1 (dTBR1), p<0,001; standard deviation of blood glucose (SD), p=0,007. Determination coefficient for SLR (predictor: dTIR) — 0,844; for MLR (predictors: dTIR, dTBR1, SD) — 0,907. ANN multilayer perceptron models with two and one hidden layers’re developed, with the RMSE on the validation set 4,617 and 6,639%, respectively. The results of the forecast efficiency on the test sample were: dTIR: MAE — 6,82%, RMSE — 8,60%; SLR: MAE — 5,66%, RMSE — 7,34%; MLR: MAE — 4,18%, RMSE — 5,28%; ANN (2 layers): MAE — 4,14%, RMSE — 5,19%; ANN (1 layer): MAE — 4,44%, RMSE — 5,52%.

CONCLUSION: ANN with two hidden layers and MLR demonstrated the best ability for TIR prediction. Further studies are required for clinical validation of developed prognostic models.

1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1593-1603. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028

2. Suplotova LA, Suditsyna AS, Romanova NV, Shestakova MV. Time in range is a tool for assessing the quality of glycemic control in diabetes. Diabetes Mellitus. 2021;24(3):282-290. https://doi.org/10.14341/DM12703

3. Janapala RN, Jayaraj JS, Fathima N, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Cureus. 2019;11(9):e5634. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5634

4. Shan R, Sarkar S, Martin SS. Digital health technology and mobile devices for the management of diabetes mellitus: state of the art. Diabetologia. 2019;62(6):877-887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-4864-7

5. Bergenstal RM, Hachmann-Nielsen E, Kvist K, et al. Increased Derived Time in Range Is Associated with Reduced Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, Severe Hypoglycemia, and Microvascular Events in Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of DEVOTE. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023;25(6):378-383. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2022.0447

6. Sun R, Duan Y, Zhang Y, et al. Time in Range Estimation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes is Improved by Incorporating Fasting and Postprandial Glucose Levels. Diabetes Ther. 2023;14(8):1373-1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01432-2

7. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Cheng P, et al. The Relationships Between Time in Range, Hyperglycemia Metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):614-626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818822496

8. Klimontov VV, Berikov VB, Saik OV. Artificial intelligence in diabetology. Diabetes Mellitus. 2021;24(2):156-166. https://doi.org/10.14341/DM12665

9. Li K, Daniels J, Liu C, Herrero P, Georgiou P. Convolutional Recurrent Neural Networks for Glucose Prediction. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020;24(2):603-613. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2019.2908488

10. Yapanis M, James S, Craig ME, O’Neal D, Ekinci EI. Complications of Diabetes and Metrics of Glycemic Management Derived From Continuous Glucose Monitoring. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2221-e2236. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgac034

11. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): A New Term for Estimating A1C From Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(11):2275-2280. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-158