carbohydrate counting
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

200
(FIVE YEARS 68)

H-INDEX

19
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 395
Author(s):  
Izzati Nur Khoiriani ◽  
Afifah Yasyfa Dhiyanti ◽  
Rizal Fakih Firmansyah ◽  
Dian Handayani

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. S29-S30
Author(s):  
Michael Tsoukas ◽  
Elisa Cohen ◽  
Laurent Legault ◽  
Julia Von Oettingen ◽  
Jean-François Yale ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phawinpon Chotwanvirat ◽  
Narit Hnoohom ◽  
Nipa Rojroongwasinkul ◽  
Wantanee Kriengsinyos

Carbohydrate counting is essential for well-controlled blood glucose in people with type 1 diabetes, but to perform it precisely is challenging, especially for Thai foods. Consequently, we developed a deep learning-based system for automatic carbohydrate counting using Thai food images taken from smartphones. The newly constructed Thai food image dataset contained 256,178 ingredient objects with measured weight for 175 food categories among 75,232 images. These were used to train object detector and weight estimator algorithms. After training, the system had a Top-1 accuracy of 80.9% and a root mean square error (RMSE) for carbohydrate estimation of <10 g in the test dataset. Another set of 20 images, which contained 48 food items in total, was used to compare the accuracy of carbohydrate estimations between measured weight, system estimation, and eight experienced registered dietitians (RDs). System estimation error was 4%, while estimation errors from nearest, lowest, and highest carbohydrate among RDs were 0.7, 25.5, and 7.6%, respectively. The RMSE for carbohydrate estimations of the system and the lowest RD were 9.4 and 10.2, respectively. The system could perform with an estimation error of <10 g for 13/20 images, which placed it third behind only two of the best performing RDs: RD1 (15/20 images) and RD5 (14/20 images). Hence, the system was satisfactory in terms of accurately estimating carbohydrate content, with results being comparable with those of experienced dietitians.


2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110354
Author(s):  
Melissa-Rosina Pasqua ◽  
Michael A. Tsoukas ◽  
Ahmad Haidar

As closed-loop insulin therapies emerge into clinical practice and evolve in medical research for type 1 diabetes (T1D) treatment, the limitations in these therapies become more evident. These gaps include unachieved target levels of glycated hemoglobin in some patients, postprandial hyperglycemia, the ongoing need for carbohydrate counting, and the lack of non-glycemic benefits (such as prevention of metabolic syndrome and complications). Multiple adjunct therapies have been examined to improve closed-loop systems, yet none have become a staple. Sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter inhibitors (SGLTi’s) have been extensively researched in T1D, with average reductions in placebo-adjusted HbA1c by 0.39%, and total daily dose by approximately 10%. Unfortunately, many trials revealed an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, as high as 5 times the relative risk compared to placebo. This narrative review discusses the proven benefits and risks of SGLTi in patients with T1D with routine therapy, what has been studied thus far in closed-loop therapy in combination with SGLTi, the potential benefits of SGLTi use to closed-loop systems, and what is required going forward to improve the benefit to risk ratio in these insulin systems.


Diabetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1265-PUB
Author(s):  
MARIKO TANIGUCHI ◽  
RYUHEI MORITA ◽  
REIKO HARADA ◽  
FUYUMI YOSHINO ◽  
YUMI MUKAI ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sina Buck ◽  
Collin Krauss ◽  
Delia Waldenmaier ◽  
Christina Liebing ◽  
Nina Jendrike ◽  
...  

Abstract Aim Correct estimation of meal carbohydrate content is a prerequisite for successful intensified insulin therapy in patients with diabetes. In this survey, the counting error in adult patients with type 1 diabetes was investigated. Methods Seventy-four patients with type 1 diabetes estimated the carbohydrate content of 24 standardized test meals. The test meals were categorized into 1 of 3 groups with different carbohydrate content: low, medium, and high. Estimation results were compared with the meals’ actual carbohydrate content as determined by calculation based on weighing. A subgroup of the participants estimated the test meals for a second (n=35) and a third time (n=22) with a mean period of 11 months between the estimations. Results During the first estimation, the carbohydrate content was underestimated by −28% (−50, 0) of the actual carbohydrate content. Particularly meals with high mean carbohydrate content were underestimated by −34% (−56, −13). Median counting error improved significantly when estimations were performed for a second time (p<0.001). Conclusions Participants generally underestimated the carbohydrate content of the test meals, especially in meals with higher carbohydrate content. Repetition of estimation resulted in significant improvements in estimation accuracy and is important for the maintenance of correct carbohydrate estimations. The ability to estimate the carbohydrate content of a meal should be checked and trained regularly in patients with diabetes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document