Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Units in the Meal Absoption Model
See original GitHub issueHi,
I just looked through the meal absoption model in detail and I noticed the following in the script t1dpatient.py:
When you calculate the variable Dbar in line 130, which is in turn used to calculate the nonlinear gastric emptying rate kgut, you add the variables last_Qsto and last_foodtaken. However, the variable last_Qsto is in mg as all the digestion states, whereas the variable last_foodtaken is in g (line 100).
Shouldn’t these variables both be in mg, as Dbar is in mg?
Cheers, Manuel
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:6 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
I hava made some further investigations into this and found the following:
I have extracted the parameters for a normal subject from the article “Meal Simulation Model of the Glucose-Insulin System”, Dalla Man, IEEE TBME, 2007. I had to assume a BW of 78 kg as it is not provided. The paper gives the following time course of the rate of glucose appearance (Ra) from three meals:
I then adapted the code to give me Ra using it as a second observation:
Ra = self.state[2] * self._params.f * self._params.kabs / self._params.BWThe fact that the model of the toolbox describes a T1DM subject is irrelevant as the meal absoption model is identical. Using the current code, i.e. NOT multiplying by 1000, I get the following result which does not match with the shape given in the paper
However, if I multiply by 1000, as I suggested before, I get a result that matches much better regarding shape. The amplitude is dependent on the BW which I had to assume, so it cannot be compared
For me this makes it quite clear that my suggestion is correct and the current version (without multiplying 1000) is a bug. Here is the csv file with the parameters I extracted from the paper. The subject is called “normal”: vpatient_params.csv
Wow that was really detailed investigation. You are right. I checked the equation. Dbar should be in mg. Let me submit a fix for this. Thank you so much for your bug report. Please do submit issues to this repo when you find any other bugs in the future. Thank you so much!
