Evaluation of model complexity in model predictive control within an exercise-enabled artificial pancreas

Abstract Model predictive control (MPC) algorithms have been used often within artificial pancreas control systems both in-silico and in clinical studies. Increasingly complex models in the controller can more accurately predict the glycemic response, but they introduce increased computational complexity which can be challenging to implement especially within an embedded environment where computational resources are limited. Less complex models are also preferable in that they can be evaluated in silico against more complex plant models. There has not yet been an evaluation of how the complexity of models used within an MPC impacts performance within an artificial pancreas. A model within an artificial pancreas MPC algorithm should be as complex as necessary to accurately predict a glycemic response to meals, exercise, stress, and other disturbances, but not overly complex. In this paper, we evaluate four glucoregulatory models used within an MPC, starting with a 4-state model and increasing in complexity up to six states. We evaluate the complexity using an in-silico population derived from a more complex glucoregulatory model (9 state variables). We assess how complexity of the model impacts performance both in terms of standard control metrics such as settling time and overshoot as well as clinically relevant metrics such as percent time in euglycemia (glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dl), percent time in hypoglycemia (70 mg/dl) and percent time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl). We find that model complexity matters far less than how well the model parameters match the individual subjects. When the simplest model is used, but fit to an individual subject’s data, it performed comparably with more complex models. We selected a middle-complexity model and integrated it into our previously published exercise-enabled MPC model and evaluated it in a virtual patient population both with and without the exercise model present. We found that increasing complexity by modeling exercise is critical to help enable early insulin shut-off by the controller to avoid hypoglycemia.

[1]  R C Boston,et al.  A modified minimal model analysis of insulin sensitivity and glucose-mediated glucose disposal in insulin-dependent diabetes. , 1991, Metabolism: clinical and experimental.

[2]  D. U. Campos-Delgado,et al.  An extension to the compartmental model of type 1 diabetic patients to reproduce exercise periods with glycogen depletion and replenishment. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  G. Steil Algorithms for a Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas: The Case for Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control , 2013, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[4]  K. Osei,et al.  Minimal model analysis of insulin sensitivity and glucose-mediated glucose disposal in Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic pancreas allograft recipients , 1992, Diabetologia.

[5]  Nicholas Preiser,et al.  Incorporating an Exercise Detection, Grading, and Hormone Dosing Algorithm Into the Artificial Pancreas Using Accelerometry and Heart Rate , 2015, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[6]  Claudio Cobelli,et al.  Minimal model SGoverestimation and SIunderestimation: improved accuracy by a Bayesian two-compartment model. , 1999, American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism.

[7]  W. Kenneth Ward,et al.  Automated Control of an Adaptive Bihormonal, Dual-Sensor Artificial Pancreas and Evaluation During Inpatient Studies , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Y. Z. Ider,et al.  Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. , 1979, The American journal of physiology.

[9]  L. Magni,et al.  Multinational Study of Subcutaneous Model-Predictive Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Summary of the Results , 2010, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[10]  Marco Forgione,et al.  Run-to-Run Tuning of Model Predictive Control for Type 1 Diabetes Subjects: In Silico Trial , 2009, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[11]  R. Hovorka,et al.  Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. , 2004, Physiological measurement.

[12]  B Wayne Bequette,et al.  Glucose Clamp Algorithms and Insulin Time-Action Profiles , 2009, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[13]  T. Kobayashi,et al.  The Pharmacokinetics of Insulin After Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion or Bolus Subcutaneous Injection in Diabetic Patients , 1983, Diabetes.

[14]  B Wayne Bequette,et al.  Algorithms for a Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas: The Case for Model Predictive Control , 2013, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[15]  Malgorzata E. Wilinska,et al.  Insulin kinetics in type-1 diabetes: continuous and bolus delivery of rapid acting insulin , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.