Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Pump interface view.

(Right) Users can specify ICR and insulin basal rate pump settings. (Left) Simulation Results displayed include glucose readings over a 10-minute interval increments and display meal amounts, basal rates, and insulin boluses.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Algorithm membership function.

(Top) Input Membership Function. The algorithm classifies glucose input into 4 sets: low, medium, high, and ex_high. The x-axis plots blood glucose values and the y-axis plots the range of truth value from 0 to 1. (Bottom) Output Membership Function involved in the center of gravity defuzzification process to produce basal-rate insulin changes.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Algorithm insulin basal rate suggestions.

Upon analyzing a 48-hour simulation run, the Fuzzy-Logic algorithm returns suggested changes to basal rates. Values displayed in green prompt the user to a necessary increase in the pump parameter, red values suggest decreasing a basal rate, and black values suggest no change.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Computed ICR values.

The suggested ICR values in green indicate an increase from the current ICR and suggested ICR values in red indicate a decrease from the current ICR.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of Open-Loop vs. Fuzzy-Logic Learning algorithms.

(Top) 31-day trial using the Open-Loop Algorithm (bottom) Fuzzy-Logic Learning Algorithm trial results. Red Lines represent the 25% and 75% IQR median range of blood glucose levels across all 15 patients, the blue lines represent insulin basal injections, and the x-axis plots clinical trial simulation time in hours.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

CSII Open-Loop vs CSII Fuzzy-Logic Learning Algorithms comparison for the overall simulation study period of 31 days across the 15 patients.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Training session results for 13 nurses spanning training stages 2–4.

More »

Table 2 Expand