|Authors||S. Sivananthan, V. Naumova, C. D. Man, A. Facchinetti, E. Renard, C. Cobelli and S. V. Pereverzyev|
|Title||Assessment of Blood Glucose Predictors: The Prediction-Error Grid Analysis|
|Project(s)||No Simula project|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2011|
|Journal||Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics|
|Publisher||Mary Ann Liebert Inc|
|Keywords||diabetes, predictor assessment|
Background: Prediction of the future blood glucose (BG) evolution from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data is a promising direction in diabetes therapy management, and several glucose predictors have recently been proposed. This raises the problem of their assessment. There were attempts to use for such assessment the continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA), originally developed for CGM devices. However, in the CG-EGA the BG rate of change is estimated from past BG readings, whereas predictors provide BG estimation ahead of time. Therefore, the original CG-EGA should be modified to assess predictors. Here we propose a new version of the CG-EGA, the Prediction-Error Grid Analysis (PRED-EGA).
Methods: The analysis is based both on simulated data and on data from clinical trials, performed in the European FP7-project “DIAdvisor.” Simulated data are used to test the ability of the analyzed CG-EGA modifications to capture erroneous predictions in controlled situation. Real data are used to show the impact of the different CG-EGA versions in the evaluation of a predictor.
Results: Using the data of 10 virtual and 10 real subjects and analyzing two different predictors, we demonstrate that the straightforward application of the CG-EGA does not adequately classify the prediction performance. For example, we observed that up to 70% of 20 min ahead predictions in the hyperglycemia region that are classified by this application as erroneous are, in fact, accurate. Moreover, for predictions during hypoglycemia the assessments produced by the straightforward application of the CG-EGA are not only too pessimistic (in up to 60% of cases), but this version is not able to detect real erroneous predictions. In contrast, the proposed modification of the CG-EGA, where the rate of change is estimated on the predicted BG profile, is an adequate metric for the assessment of predictions.
Conclusions: We propose a new CG-EGA, the PRED-EGA, for the assessment of glucose predictors. The presented analysis shows that, compared with the straightforward application of the CG-EGA, the PRED-EGA gives a significant reduction of the misclassification cases. A reduction by a factor of at least 4 was observed in the study. Moreover, the PRED-EGA is much more robust against uncertainty in the input and references.