4.7 Article

Randomized Crossover Comparison of Personalized MPC and PID Control Algorithms for the Artificial Pancreas

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 39, Issue 7, Pages 1135-1142

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc15-2344

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. JDRF [22-2011-237]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health [DP3-DK094331, R01-DK-085628]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To evaluate two widely used control algorithms for an artificial pancreas (AP) under nonideal but comparable clinical conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS After a pilot safety and feasibility study (n = 10), closed-loop control (CLC) was evaluated in a randomized, crossover trial of 20 additional adults with type 1 diabetes. Personalized model predictive control (MPC) and proportional integral derivative (PID) algorithms were compared in supervised 27.5-h CLC sessions. Challenges included overnight control after a 65-g dinner, response to a 50-g breakfast, and response to an unannounced 65-g lunch. Boluses of announced dinner and breakfast meals were given at mealtime. The primary outcome was time in glucose range 70-180 mg/dL. RESULTS Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater for MPC than for PID (74.4 vs. 63.7%, P = 0.020). Mean glucose was also lower for MPC than PID during the entire trial duration (138 vs. 160 mg/dL, P = 0.012) and 5 h after the unannounced 65-g meal (181 vs. 220 mg/dL, P = 0.019). There was no significant difference in time with glucose < 70 mg/dL throughout the trial period. CONCLUSIONS This first comprehensive study to compare MPC and PID control for the AP indicates that MPC performed particularly well, achieving nearly 75% time in the target range, including the unannounced meal. Although both forms of CLC provided safe and effective glucose management, MPC performed as well or better than PID in all metrics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available