Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025
Computational Reconstruction of Pancreatic Islets as a Tool for Structural and Functional Analysis
Published on: March 9, 2022
An In Silico Head-to-Head Comparison of the Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Loop and Bio-Inspired Artificial
Ryan Armiger1, Monika Reddy2, Nick S Oliver2
1Centre for Bio-Inspired Technology, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Background:
User-developed automated insulin delivery systems, also referred to as do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS), are in use by people living with type 1 diabetes. In this work, we evaluate, in silico, the DIY APS Loop control algorithm and compare it head-to-head with the bio-inspired artificial pancreas (BiAP) controller for which clinical data are available.
Methods:
The Python version of the Loop control algorithm called PyLoopKit was employed for evaluation purposes. A Python-MATLAB interface was created to integrate PyLoopKit with the UVa-Padova simulator. Two configurations of BiAP (non-adaptive and adaptive) were evaluated. In addition, the Tandem Basal-IQ predictive low-glucose suspend was used as a baseline algorithm. Two scenarios with different levels of variability were used to challenge the algorithms on the adult (n = 10) and adolescent (n = 10) virtual cohorts of the simulator.
Results:
Both BiAP and Loop improve, or maintain, glycemic control when compared with Basal-IQ. Under the scenario with lower variability, BiAP and Loop perform relatively similarly. However, BiAP, and in particular its adaptive configuration, outperformed Loop in the scenario with higher variability by increasing the percentage time in glucose target range 70-180 mg/dL (BiAP-Adaptive vs Loop vs Basal-IQ) (adults: 89.9% ± 3.2%* vs 79.5% ± 5.3%* vs 67.9% ± 8.3%; adolescents: 74.6 ± 9.5%* vs 53.0% ± 7.7% vs 55.4% ± 12.0%, where * indicates the significance of P < .05 calculated in sequential order) while maintaining the percentage time below range (adults: 0.89% ± 0.37% vs 1.72% ± 1.26% vs 3.41 ± 1.92%; adolescents: 2.87% ± 2.77% vs 4.90% ± 1.92% vs 4.17% ± 2.74%).
Conclusions:
Both Loop and BiAP algorithms are safe and improve glycemic control when compared, in silico, with Basal-IQ. However, BiAP appears significantly more robust to real-world challenges by outperforming Loop and Basal-IQ in the more challenging scenario.
