4.6 Article

Automatic Artificial Pancreas Systems Using an Intelligent Multiple-Model PID Strategy

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2021.3116376

关键词

Insulin; Mathematical models; Genetic algorithms; Pancreas; Diabetes; Statistics; Sociology; Artificial pancreas; intelligent multiple-model; PID controllers; type 1 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces an individualized intelligent multiple-model technique for designing automatic artificial pancreas systems to regulate blood sugar levels in type 1 diabetic patients. The methodology involves optimizing the insulin-glucose regulatory system by balancing the number of models and system complexity, resulting in optimized AP systems with enhanced performance.
In this paper, an individualized intelligent multiple-model technique is proposed to design automatic artificial pancreas (AP) systems for the glycemic regulation of type 1 diabetic patients. At first, using the multiple-model concept, the insulin-glucose regulatory system is mathematically identified by constructing some local models. In this step, trade-offs between the number of local models and the complexity of the overall closed-loop system are made by defining and solving a bi-objective optimization problem. Then, optimal AP systems are designed by tuning a bank of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers via the genetic algorithm (GA). A fuzzy gain scheduling strategy is employed to determine the participation percentages of the PID controllers in the control action. Finally, two safety mechanisms, called insulin on board (IOB) constraint and pump shut-off, are installed in the AP systems to enhance their performance. To assess the proposed AP systems, in silico experiments are performed on virtual patients of the UVA/Padova metabolic simulator. The obtained results reveal that the proposed intelligent multiple-model methodology leads to AP systems with limited hyperglycemia and no severe hypoglycemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据