I could easily rack up 5 a week if you include those during or post exercise, so far this week I'm up to three sub-4.0 readings since SaturdayAll looks encouraging and not before time too. The 10 hypo's a week seems an awful lot
I could easily rack up 5 a week if you include those during or post exercise, so far this week I'm up to three sub-4.0 readings since Saturday
exactly, same with kids I would think with random spontaneous activity levels regardless of IOB
Even if that's true, the artificial pancreas will be using the usual subcutaneous infusion set so it can't take advantage of that effect.Maybe someone else could chip in here, but my understanding of the pancreas, is that this is what it does - detect an increase in BGs and release some insulin. Because it's got better direct access to the bloodstream than an injection, the effect of pancreatic insulin is faster than injected
The goal of the new system is to completely disregard all information (e.g. If you are going to eat a burger, or go for a run), and the result is necessarily going to be worse than a system that takes this information into account - that's an inevitable mathematical fact.Changes to insulin sensitivity due to exercise, time of day are going to be big challenges too. It's going to involve some complex analytics
I agree. It's frustrating.the point remains that I feel they are intentionally crippling the system by discarding information.
Even if that's true, the artificial pancreas will be using the usual subcutaneous infusion set so it can't take advantage of that effect.
The goal of the new system is to completely disregard all information (e.g. If you are going to eat a burger, or go for a run), and the result is necessarily going to be worse than a system that takes this information into account - that's an inevitable mathematical fact.
In practise the difference might not be significant, and this artificial pancreas might be a significant improvement over MDI, in particular for patients who have trouble with hypos but the point remains that I feel they are intentionally crippling the system by discarding information.
I am very ****** off that I am walking round with a pump and a very accurate CGM, paired, such that the pump continually knows my blood glucose, yet it does nothing active with this information beyond alarms. It goes out of its way to pretend it doesn't know my BG. When I use the BG wizard it defaults to 4.4 even though it knows my actual BG and could trivially set the actual value as a proposed value. So if doesn't even support a person in the loop mode, let alone a closed loop. How many more years are going to be required before we get our hands on this kit? If infuriates me because I could write a safe and effective algorithm for a closed loop in under a minute. If I could patch the pump software that is exactly what I would do.
I agree, and that's really my point.I see where you are coming from but the problem of a feedback system with laggy inputs is ubiquitous in engineering and a well solved problem both in theory and in practice. The solution is damping. You under react to the inputs, slowly and progressively. Remember we don't need to replicate the performance of an actual pancreas in order to get improvements that will render MDI and manually controlled pumps obsolete. I'm not interested in the problem of completely replicating organic pancreas levels of control. Not yet anyway. There will be probably three or four generations of operational closed loop devices before we are tackling that problem, which is admittedly a hard one. I just want to get to the first operational generation. I'm frustrated it's not already here because the current technology could easily do the job.
Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?