FREESTYLE LIBRE ON SALE!!!!
- Thread starter Emmotha
- Start Date
- Messages
- 1,123
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Definitely for 6 weeks, no question.
Long term use is up for debate
Good news that he listened and wants the data. I doubt the strip reader has anything to do with the scanning algorithm though because I don't even use the built-in strip reader but I still get the data from the sensor by way of scans and download to PC.
Now, while we're on the subject of the algorithm, have any of you noticed that the result you get when you scan is sometimes quite different than the result given in the downloaded continuous data for the same time? I've noticed this a couple of times and have meant to go back and investigate, but haven't yet remembered to do so. It is also not in 'age' order when downloaded to the PC, you have to do a data sort in Excel to get it into date/time order - the scans seem to take order priority over the downloaded data. Anyone noticed and worked out what's going on there?
Smidge
Ooh. Time to take a look.
EDIT: I hadn't noticed that, but I see precisely what you mean. In addition, the entering of a fast acting insulin dose gets ranked ahead of the scan, which is ranked ahead of the historic data. Somewhere, the scan seems to allocate a newer sequence number.
If you look at the ID number of each reading, there is no pattern to them. Given that these are supposed to be sequential readings, based on the average taken every x mins, this doesn't make sense. In addition, the interval over which the historic average is calculated varies and this doesn't always depend on their being a scan undertaken. It's all slightly random!
EDIT: I hadn't noticed that, but I see precisely what you mean. In addition, the entering of a fast acting insulin dose gets ranked ahead of the scan, which is ranked ahead of the historic data. Somewhere, the scan seems to allocate a newer sequence number.
If you look at the ID number of each reading, there is no pattern to them. Given that these are supposed to be sequential readings, based on the average taken every x mins, this doesn't make sense. In addition, the interval over which the historic average is calculated varies and this doesn't always depend on their being a scan undertaken. It's all slightly random!
Last edited by a moderator:
robert72
Well-Known Member
I think the 15 minute data is extrapolated from the 1 minute background data as it arrives late. Notice how the graph stops short of the last scan when you look at it on PC
Yea thats not really changed in a while an email i got in december had said the start of january, so far no luck
It's actually the average reading of he last twenty minutes, but yes you are correct. I suspect the reason for the mismatch is that the sequence number is the next sequence number off the line, while the time references the start of the period for which the average is calculated. Will have to check that on the next sensor I insert.
Oh.... 
After having had a number of reasonably good sensors, sensor number two from the 10/2015 batch is now misbehaving. And it went in on Saturday.
I've been reading above my current blood glucose since about 7.30am this morning. It started out with a small hypo where I saw a 0.5 difference, and has slowly expanded throughout the day to 1.6 mmol/l difference, which is now a 20% difference. Ironically, what I am now seeing is that the supposedly inaccurate old sensor is now reading at the right level while the supposedly accurate new sensor is quite a long way out. Where's the **** wall....
After having had a number of reasonably good sensors, sensor number two from the 10/2015 batch is now misbehaving. And it went in on Saturday.
I've been reading above my current blood glucose since about 7.30am this morning. It started out with a small hypo where I saw a 0.5 difference, and has slowly expanded throughout the day to 1.6 mmol/l difference, which is now a 20% difference. Ironically, what I am now seeing is that the supposedly inaccurate old sensor is now reading at the right level while the supposedly accurate new sensor is quite a long way out. Where's the **** wall....
robert72
Well-Known Member
Oh-oh - I currently have 4 unused sensors with exp 10/2015. One is Lot 41104C, the others are 41125BOh....
After having had a number of reasonably good sensors, sensor number two from the 10/2015 batch is now misbehaving. And it went in on Saturday.
I've been reading above my current blood glucose since about 7.30am this morning. It started out with a small hypo where I saw a 0.5 difference, and has slowly expanded throughout the day to 1.6 mmol/l difference, which is now a 20% difference. Ironically, what I am now seeing is that the supposedly inaccurate old sensor is now reading at the right level while the supposedly accurate new sensor is quite a long way out. Where's the **** wall....
Some of them'll be fine. As said, I had one lovely one from that Lot.
robert72
Well-Known Member
Yep - I had one good and one bad from my very first batch. They were both from the same Lot, so it seems to be a random thing
So, two sensors, one 17.5% too high, the other 17.5% too low. The irony is marvellous. Still, at least if I use both I'll have some idea of where my blood glucose level really is...! Another phone call to Abbott in the offing tomorrow I think. They will be getting as bored of me as I am of doing their trials for them.
On a slightly different note, I was reading the detail of the clinical trials they are doing in the US. They are taking a sample of 164 people, and giving them one sensor and a reader, then having them do 8 scheduled blood tests per day over 14 days to prove the accuracy of the reader/sensor for the FDA. I thought it would be relatively easy to replicate this (and I think 164 is more than the European sample ) using forum members.
Is anyone up for it?
On a slightly different note, I was reading the detail of the clinical trials they are doing in the US. They are taking a sample of 164 people, and giving them one sensor and a reader, then having them do 8 scheduled blood tests per day over 14 days to prove the accuracy of the reader/sensor for the FDA. I thought it would be relatively easy to replicate this (and I think 164 is more than the European sample ) using forum members.
Is anyone up for it?
robert72
Well-Known Member
I would but my fingers are quite sore now after the last two weeksSo, two sensors, one 17.5% too high, the other 17.5% too low. The irony is marvellous. Still, at least if I use both I'll have some idea of where my blood glucose level really is...! Another phone call to Abbott in the offing tomorrow I think. They will be getting as bored of me as I am of doing their trials for them.
On a slightly different note, I was reading the detail of the clinical trials they are doing in the US. They are taking a sample of 164 people, and giving them one sensor and a reader, then having them do 8 scheduled blood tests per day over 14 days to prove the accuracy of the reader/sensor for the FDA. I thought it would be relatively easy to replicate this (and I think 164 is more than the European sample ) using forum members.
Is anyone up for it?
daniT1D
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 354
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
