2020
DOI: 10.1109/tbme.2020.2975959
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms on Blood Glucose Prediction for Type I Diabetes in Comparison With Classical Time-Series Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
55
1
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
55
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although it is the simplest, its accuracy could be sufficient, and due to its simplicity, it is easily executable even by limited hardware. In any case, recent approximations using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression have achieved acceptable accuracy and good performance [18].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although it is the simplest, its accuracy could be sufficient, and due to its simplicity, it is easily executable even by limited hardware. In any case, recent approximations using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression have achieved acceptable accuracy and good performance [18].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, Xie and Wang compared the performance of several black-box prediction algorithms on the OhioT1DM dataset [ 58 ]. In particular, they considered the Autoregressive model with exogenous inputs (ARX), elastic net, LASSO, Ridge and Huber regressions, gradient boosting trees, random forest, support vector regression (SVR) and two deep learning approaches: LSTM and Temporal Convolution Network (TCN).…”
Section: Glucose Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While an ideal classifier would obviously display a unitary AUC value, in general terms it can be stated that the higher the its value more robust is the decision made. The three proposed evaluation metrics are established and represent a standard for benchmarking DM methods [41], [42].…”
Section: Accmentioning
confidence: 99%