data

Choose One: What would you give up if you could? (With #OpenAPS, maybe you can – oref1 includes unannounced meals or “UAM”)

by Dana Lewis

What do you have to do today (related to daily insulin dosing for diabetes) that you’d like to give up if you could? Counting carbs? Bolusing? Or what about outcomes – what if you could give up going low after a meal? Or reduce the amount that you spike?

How many of these 5 things do you think are possible to achieve together?

  • No need to bolus
  • No need to count carbs
  • Medium/high carb meals
  • 80%+ time in range
  • no hypoglycemia

How many can you manage with your current therapy and tools of choice?  How many do you think will be possible with hybrid closed loop systems?  Please think about (and maybe even write down) your answers before reading further to get our perspective.

—

With just pump and CGM, it’s possible to get good time in range with proper boluses, counting carbs, and eating relatively low-carb (or getting lucky/spending a lot of time learning how to time your insulin with regular meals).  Even with all that, some people still go low/have hypoglycemia.  So, let’s call that a 2 (out of 5) that can be achieved simultaneously.

With a first-generation hybrid closed loop system like the original OpenAPS oref0 algorithm, it’s possible to get good time in range overnight, but achieve that for meal times would still require bolusing properly and counting carbs.  But with the perfect night-time BGs, it’s possible to achieve no-hypoglycemia and 80% time in range with medium carb meals (and high-carb meals with Eating Soon mode etc.).  So, let’s call that a 3 (out of 5).

With some of the advanced features we added to OpenAPS with oref0 (like advanced meal assist or “AMA” as we call it), it became a lot easier to achieve a 3 with less bolusing and less need to precisely count carbs.  It also deals better with high-carb meals, and gives the user even more flexibility.  So, let’s call that a 3.5.

A few months ago, when we began discussing how to further improve daily outcomes, we also began to discuss the idea of how to better deal with unannounced meals. This means when someone eats and boluses, but doesn’t enter carbs. (Or in some cases: eats, doesn’t enter carbs, and doesn’t even bolus). How do we design to better help in that safety, all while sticking to our safety principles and dosing safely?

I came up with this idea of “floating carbs” as a way to design a solution for this behavior. Essentially, we’ve learned that if BG spikes at a certain rate, it’s often related to carbs. We observed that AMA can appropriately respond to such a rise, while not dosing extra insulin if BG is not rising.  Which prompted the question: what if we had a “floating” amount of carbs hanging out there, and it could be decayed and dosed upon with AMA if that rise in BG was detected? That led us to build in support for unannounced meals, or “UAM”. (But you’ll probably see us still talk about “floating carbs” some, too, because that was the original way we were thinking about solving the UAM problem.) This is where the suite of tools that make up oref1 came from.  In addition to UAM, we also introduced supermicroboluses, or SMB for short.  (For more background info about oref1 and SMB, read here.)

So with OpenAPS oref1 with SMB and floating carbs for UAM, we are finally at the point to achieve a solid 4 out of 5.  And not just a single set of 4, but any 4 of the 5 (except we’d prefer you don’t choose hypoglycemia, of course):

  • With a low-carb meal, no-hypoglycemia and 80+% time in range is achievable without bolusing or counting carbs (with just an Eating Soon mode that triggers SMB).
  • With a regular meal, the user can either bolus for it (triggering floating carb UAM with SMB) or enter a rough carb count / meal announcement (triggering Eating Now SMB) and achieve 80% time in range.
  • If the user chooses to eat a regular meal and not bolus or enter a carb count (just an Eating Soon mode), the BG results won’t be as good, but oref1 will still handle it gracefully and bring BG back down without causing any hypoglycemia or extended hyperglycemia.

That is huge progress, of course.  And we think that might be about as good as it’s possible to do with current-generation insulin-only pump therapy.  To do better, we’d either need an APS that can dose glucagon and be configured for tight targets, or much faster insulin.  The dual-hormone systems currently in development are targeting an average BG of 140, or an A1c of 6.5, which likely means >20% of time spent > 160mg/dL.  And to achieve that, they do require meal announcements of the small/medium/large variety, similar to what oref1 needs.  Fiasp is promising on the faster-insulin front, and might allow us to develop a future version of oref1 that could deal with completely unannounced and un-bolused meals, but it’s probably not fast enough to achieve 80% time in range on a high-carb diet without some sort of meal announcement or boluses.

But 4 out of 5 isn’t bad, especially when you get to pick which 4, and can pick differently for every meal.

Does that make OpenAPS a “real” artificial pancreas? Is it a hybrid closed loop artificial insulin delivery system? Do we care what it’s called? For Scott and me; the answer is no: instead of focusing on what it’s called, let’s focus on how different tools and techniques work, and what we can do to continue to improve them.

Being Shuttleworth Funded with a Flash Grant as an independent patient researcher

by Dana Lewis

Recently, I have been working on helping OpenAPS’ers collect our data and put it to good use in research (both by traditional researchers as well as using it to enable other fellow patient researchers or “citizen scientists). As a result, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Madeleine Ball at Open Humans. (Open Humans is the platform we use for the OpenAPS Data Commons.)

It’s been awesome to collaborate with Madeleine on many fronts. She’s proven herself really willing to listen to ideas and suggestions for things to change, to make it easier for both individuals to donate their data to research and for researchers who want to use the platform. And, despite me not having the same level of technical skills, she emits a deep respect for people of all experiences and perspectives. She’s also in general a really great person.

As someone who is (perhaps uniquely) utilizing the platform as both a data donor and as a data researcher, it has been fantastic to be able to work through the process of data donation, project creation, and project utilization from both perspectives. And, it’s been great to contribute ideas and make tools (like some of my scripts to download and unpack Open Humans data) that can then be used by other researchers on Open Humans.

Madeleine was also selected this year to be a Shuttleworth Fellow, applying “open” principles to change how we share and study human health data, plus exploring new, participant-centered approaches for health data sharing, research, and citizen science. Which means that everything she’s doing is in almost perfect sync with what we are doing in the OpenAPS and #WeAreNotWaiting communities.

What I didn’t know until this past week was that it also meant (as a Shuttleworth Fellow) that she was able to make nominations of individuals for a Shuttleworth Flash Grant, which is a grant made to a collection of social change agents, no strings attached, in support of their work.

I was astonished to receive an email from the Shuttleworth Foundation saying that I had been nominated by Madeleine for a $5,000 Flash Grant, which goes to individuals they would like to support/reward/encourage in their work for social good.

Shuttleworth Funded

I am so blown away by the Flash Grant itself – and the signal that this grant provides. This is the first (of hopefully many) organizations to recognize the importance of supporting independent patient researchers who are not affiliated with an institution, but rather with an online community. It’s incredibly meaningful for this research and work, which is centered around real needs of patients in the real world, to be funded, even to a small degree.

Many non-traditional researchers like me are unaffiliated with a traditional institution or organization. This means we do the research in our own time, funded solely by our own energy (and in some case resources). Time in of itself is a valuable contribution to research (think of the opportunity costs). However, it is also costly to distribute and disseminate ideas learned from patient-driven research to more traditional researchers. Even ignoring travel costs, most scientific conferences do not have a patient research access program, which means patients in some cases are asked to pay $400 (or more) per person for a single day pass to stand beside their poster if it is accepted for presentation at a conference. In some cases, patients have personal resources and determination and are willing to pay that cost. But not every patient is able to do that. (And to do it year over year as they continue to do new ground-breaking research each year – that adds up, too, especially when you factor in travel, lodging, and the opportunity cost of being away from a day job.)

So what will I use the Flash Grant for? Here’s so far what I’ve decided to put it toward:

#1 – I plan to use it to fund my & Scott’s travel costs this year to ADA’s Scientific Sessions, where our poster on Autotune & data from the #WeAreNotWaiting community will be presented. (I’m still hoping to convince ADA to create a patient researcher program vs. treating us like an individual walking in off the street; but if they again do not choose to do so, it will take $800 for Scott and I to stand with the poster during the poster session). Being at Scientific Sessions is incredibly valuable as researchers and developers, because we can have real-time conversations with traditional researchers who have not yet been introduced to some of our tools or the data collected and donated by the community. It’s one of the most valuable places for us to be in person in terms of facilitating new research partnerships, in addition to renewing and establishing relationships with device manufacturers who could (because our stuff is all open source MIT licensed) utilize our code and tools in commercial devices to more broadly reach people with diabetes.

#2 – Hardware parts. In order to best support the OpenAPS community, Scott and I have also been supporting and contributing to the development of open source hardware like the Explorer Board. Keeping in mind that each version of the board produced needs to be tested to see if the instructions related to OpenAPS need to change, we have been buying every iteration of Explorer Board so we can ensure compatibility and ease of use, which adds up. Having some of this grant funding go toward hardware supplies to support a multitude of setup options is nice!

—

There are so many individuals who have contributed in various ways to OpenAPS and WeAreNotWaiting and the patient-driven research movements. I’m incredibly encouraged, with a new spurt of energy and motivation, after receiving this Flash Grant to continue to further build upon everyone’s work and to do as much as possible to support every person in our collective communities. Thank you again to Madeleine for the nomination, and to the Shuttleworth Foundation for the Flash Grant, for the financial and emotional support for our community!

Making it possible for researchers to work with #OpenAPS or general Nightscout data – and creating a complex json to csv command line tool that works with unknown schema

by Dana Lewis

This is less of an OpenAPS/DIYPS/diabetes-related post, although that is normally what I blog about. However, since we created the #OpenAPS Data Commons on Open Humans, to allow those of us who desire to donate our diabetes data to research, I have been spending a lot of time figuring out the process from uploading your data to how data is managed and shared securely with researchers. The hardest part is helping researchers figure out how to handle the data – because we PWDs produce a lot of data :) . So this post explains some of the challenges of the data management to get it to a researcher-friendly format. I have been greatly helped over the years by general purpose open-source work from other people, and one of the things that helps ME the most as a non-traditional programmer is plain language posts explaining the thought process by behind the tools and the attempted solution paths. Especially because sometimes the web pages and blog posts pop higher in search than nitty gritty tool documentation without context. (Plus, I’ve been taking my own advice about not letting myself hold me back from trying, even when I don’t know how to do things yet.) So that’s what this post is!

OH that I "certainly stress tested" a tool with lots of data

Background/inspiration for the project and the tools I had to build:

We’re using Nightscout, which is a remote data-viewing platform for diabetes data, made with love and open source and freely available for anyone with diabetes to use. It’s one of the best ways to display not only continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data, but also data from our DIY closed loop artificial pancreases (#OpenAPS). It can store data from a number of different kinds and brands of diabetes devices (pumps, CGMs, manual data entries, etc.), which means it’s a rich source of data. As the number of DIY OpenAPS users are growing, we estimate that our real-world use is overtaking the amount of total hours of data from clinical trials of closed loop artificial pancreas systems.  In the #WeAreNotWaiting spirit of moving quickly (rather than waiting years for research teams to collect and analyze their own data) we want to see what we can learn from OpenAPS usage, not only by donating data to help traditional researchers speed up their work, but also by co-designing research studies of the things of most value to the diabetes community.

Step 1: Data from users to Open Humans

I thought Step 1 would be the hardest. However, thanks to Madeleine Ball, John Costik, and others in the Nightscout community, a simple Nightscout Data Transfer App was created that enables people with Nightscout data to pop it into their Open Humans accounts. It’s then very easy to join different projects (like the OpenAPS Data Commons) and share your data with those projects. And as the volunteer administrator of the OpenAPS Data Commons, it’s also easy for me to provide data to researchers.

The biggest challenge at this stage was figuring out how much data to pull from the API. I have almost 3 years worth of DIY diabetes data, and I have numerous devices over time uploading all at once…which makes for large chunks of data. Not everyone has this much data (or 6-7 rigs uploading constantly ;)). Props to Madeleine for the patience in working with me to make sure the super users with large data sets will be able to use all of these tools!

Step 2: Sharing the data with researchers

This was easy. Yay for data-sharing tools like Dropbox.

Step 3: Researchers being able to use the data

Here’s where thing started to get interesting. We have large data files that come in json format from Nightscout. I know some researchers we will be working with are probably very comfortable working with tools that can take large, complex json files. However…not all will be, especially because we also want to encourage independent researchers to engage with the data for projects. So I had the belated realization that we need to do something other than hand over json files. We need to convert, at the least, to csv so it can be easily viewed in Excel.

Sounds easy, right?

According to basic searches, there’s roughly a gazillion ways to convert json to csv. There’s even websites that will do it for you, without making you run it on the command line. However, most of them require you to know the types of data and the number of types, in order to therefore construct headers in the csv file to make it readable and useful to a human.

This is where the DIY and infinite possibility nature of all the kinds of diabetes tools anyone could be using with Nightscout, plus the infinite ways they can self-describe profiles and alarms and methods of entering data, makes it tricky. Just based on an eyeball search between two individuals, I was unable to find and count the hundred+ types of data entry possibilities. This is definitely a job for the computer, but I had to figure out how to train the computer to deal with this.

Again, json to csv tools are so common I figured there HAD to be someone who had done this. Finally, after a dozen varying searches and trying a variety of command line tools, I finally found one web-based tool that would take json, create the schema without knowing the data types in advance, and convert it to csv. It was (is) super slick. I got very excited when I saw it linked to a Github repository, because that meant it was probably open source and I can use it. I didn’t see any instructions for how to use it on the command line, though, so I message the author on Twitter and found out that it didn’t yet exist and was a not-yet-done TODO for him.

Sigh. Given this whole #WeAreNotWaiting thing (and given I’ve promised to help some of the researchers in figuring this out so we can initiate some of the research projects), I needed to figure out how to convert this tool into a command line version.

So, I did.

  • I taught myself how to unzip json files (ended up picking `gzip -cd`, because it works on both Mac and Linux)
  • I planned to then convert the web tool to be able to work on the command line, and use it to translate the json files to csv.

But..remember the big file issue? It struck again. So I first had to figure out the best way to estimate the size and splice or split the json into a series of files, without splitting it in a weird place and messing up the data. That became jsonsplit.sh, a tool to split a json file based on the size you give it (and if you don’t specify, it defaults to something like 100000 records).

FWIW: 100,000 records was too much for the more complex schema of the data I was working with, so I often did it in smaller chunks, but you can set it to whatever size you prefer.

So now “all” I had to do was:

  • Unzip the json
  • Break it down if it was too large, using jsonsplit.sh
  • Convert each of these files from json to csv

Phew. Each of these looks really simple now, but took a good chunk of time to figure out. Luckily, the author of the web tool had done much of the hard json-to-csv work, and Scott helped me figure out how to take the html-based version of the conversion and make it useable in the command line using javascript. That became complex-json2csv.js.

Because I knew how hard this all was, and wanted other people to be able to easily use this tool if they had large, complex json with unknown schema to deal with, I created a package.json so I could publish it to npm so you can download and run it anywhere.

I also had to create a script that would pass it all of the Open Humans data; unzip the file; run jsonsplit.sh, run complex-json2csv.js, and organize the data in a useful way, given the existing file structure of the data. Therefore I also created an “OpenHumansDataTools” repository on Github, so that other researchers who will be using Nightscout-based Open Humans data can use this if they want to work with the data. (And, there may be something useful to others using Open Humans even if they’re not using Nightscout data as their data source – again, see “large, complex, challenging json since you don’t know the data type and count of data types” issue. So this repo can link them to complex-json2csv.js and jsonsplit.sh for discovery purposes, as they’re general purpose tools.) That script is here.

My next TODO will be to write a script to take only slices of data based on information shared as part of the surveys that go with the Nightscout data; i.e. if you started your DIY closed loop on X data, take data from 2 weeks prior and 6 weeks after, etc.

I also created a pull request (PR) back to the original tool that inspired my work, in case he wants to add it to his repository for others who also want to run his great stuff from the command line. I know my stuff isn’t perfect, but it works :) and I’m proud of being able to contribute to general-purpose open source in addition to diabetes-specific open source work. (Big thanks as always to everyone who devotes their work to open source for others to use!)

—

So now, I can pass researchers json or csv files for use in their research. We have a number of studies who are planning to request access to the OpenAPS Data Commons, and I’m excited about how work like this to make diabetes data more broadly available for research will help improve our lives in the short and long term!

Autotune (automatically assessing basal rates, ISF, and carb ratio with #OpenAPS – and even without it!)

by Dana Lewis

What if, instead of guessing needed changes (the current most used method) basal rates, ISF, and carb ratios…we could use data to empirically determine how these ratios should be adjusted?

Meet autotune.

What if we could use data to determine basal rates, ISF and carb ratio? Meet autotune

Historically, most people have guessed basal rates, ISF, and carb ratios. Their doctors may use things like the “rule of 1500” or “1800” or body weight. But, that’s all a general starting place. Over time, people have to manually tweak these underlying basals and ratios in order to best live life with type 1 diabetes. It’s hard to do this manually, and know if you’re overcompensating with meal boluses (aka an incorrect carb ratio) for basal, or over-basaling to compensate for meal times or an incorrect ISF.

And why do these values matter?

It’s not just about manually dosing with this information. But importantly, for most DIY closed loops (like #OpenAPS), dose adjustments are made based on the underlying basals, ISF, and carb ratio. For someone with reasonably tuned basals and ratios, that’s works great. But for someone with values that are way off, it means the system can’t help them adjust as much as someone with well-tuned values. It’ll still help, but it’ll be a fraction as powerful as it could be for that person.

There wasn’t much we could do about that…at first. We designed OpenAPS to fall back to whatever values people had in their pumps, because that’s what the person/their doctor had decided was best. However, we know some people’s aren’t that great, for a variety of reasons. (Growth, activity changes, hormonal cycles, diet and lifestyle changes – to name a few. Aka, life.)

With autosensitivity, we were able to start to assess when actual BG deltas were off compared to what the system predicted should be happening. And with that assessment, it would dynamically adjust ISF, basals, and targets to adjust. However, a common reaction was people seeing the autosens result (based on 24 hours data) and assume that mean that their underlying ISF/basal should be changed. But that’s not the case for two reasons. First, a 24 hour period shouldn’t be what determines those changes. Second, with autosens we cannot tell apart the effects of basals vs. the effect of ISF.

Autotune, by contrast, is designed to iteratively adjust basals, ISF, and carb ratio over the course of weeks – based on a longer stretch of data. Because it makes changes more slowly than autosens, autotune ends up drawing on a larger pool of data, and is therefore able to differentiate whether and how basals and/or ISF need to be adjusted, and also whether carb ratio needs to be changed. Whereas we don’t recommend changing basals or ISF based on the output of autosens (because it’s only looking at 24h of data, and can’t tell apart the effects of basals vs. the effect of ISF), autotune is intended to be used to help guide basal, ISF, and carb ratio changes because it’s tracking trends over a large period of time.

Ideally, for those of us using DIY closed loops like OpenAPS, you can run autotune iteratively inside the closed loop, and let it tune basals, ISF, and carb ratio nightly and use those updated settings automatically. Like autosens, and everything else in OpenAPS, there are safety caps. Therefore, none of these parameters can be tuned beyond 20-30% from the underlying pump values. If someone’s autotune keeps recommending the maximum (20% more resistant, or 30% more sensitive) change over time, then it’s worth a conversation with their doctor about whether your underlying values need changing on the pump – and the person can take this report in to start the discussion.

Not everyone will want to let it run iteratively, though – not to mention, we want it to be useful to anyone, regardless of which DIY closed loop they choose to use – or not! Ideally, this can be run one-off by anyone with Nightscout data of BG and insulin treatments. (Note – I wrote this blog post on a Friday night saying “There’s still some more work that needs to be done to make it easier to run as a one-off (and test it with people who aren’t looping but have the right data)…but this is the goal of autotune!” And as by Saturday morning, we had volunteers who sat down with us and within 1-2 hours had it figured out and documented! True #WeAreNotWaiting. :))

And from what we know, this may be the first tool to help actually make data-driven recommendations on how to change basal rates, ISF, and carb ratios.

How autotune works:

Step 1: Autotune-prep

  • Autotune-prep takes three things initially: glucose data; treatments data; and starting profile (originally from pump; afterwards autotune will set a profile)
  • It calculates BGI and deviation for each glucose value based on treatments
  • Then, it categorizes each glucose value as attributable to either carb sensitivity factor (CSF), ISF, or basals
  • To determine if a “datum” is attributable to CSF, carbs on board (COB) are calculated and decayed over time based on observed BGI deviations, using the same algorithm used by Advanced Meal Asssit. Glucose values after carb entry are attributed to CSF until COB = 0 and BGI deviation <= 0. Subsequent data is attributed as ISF or basals.
  • If BGI is positive (meaning insulin activity is negative), BGI is smaller than 1/4 of basal BGI, or average delta is positive, that data is attributed to basals.
  • Otherwise, the data is attributed to ISF.
  • All this data is output to a single file with 3 sections: ISF, CSF, and basals.

Step 2: Autotune-core

  • Autotune-core reads the prepped glucose file with 3 sections. It calculates what adjustments should be made to ISF, CSF, and basals accordingly.
  • For basals, it divides the day into hour long increments. It calculates the total deviations for that hour increment and calculates what change in basal would be required to adjust those deviations to 0. It then applies 20% of that change needed to the three hours prior (because of insulin impact time). If increasing basal, it increases each of the 3 hour increments by the same amount. If decreasing basal, it does so proportionally, so the biggest basal is reduced the most.
  • For ISF, it calculates the 50th percentile deviation for the entire day and determines how much ISF would need to change to get that deviation to 0. It applies 10% of that as an adjustment to ISF.
  • For CSF, it calculates the total deviations over all of the day’s mealtimes and compares to the deviations that are expected based on existing CSF and the known amount of carbs entered, and applies 10% of that adjustment to CSF.
  • Autotune applies a 20% limit on how much a given basal, or ISF or CSF, can vary from what is in the existing pump profile, so that if it’s running as part of your loop, autotune can’t get too far off without a chance for a human to review the changes.

(See more about how to run autotune here in the OpenAPS docs.)

What autotune output looks like:

Here’s an example of autotune output.

OpenAPS autotune example by @DanaMLewis—

Autotune is one of the things Scott and I spent time on over the holidays (and hinted about at the end of my development review of 2016 for OpenAPS). As always with #OpenAPS, it’s awesome to take an idea, get it coded up, get it tested with some early adopters/other developers within days, and continue to improve it!

Highlighting someone successfully using Autotune to help adjust baseline settings

A big thank you to those who’ve been testing and helping iterate on autotune (and of course, all other things OpenAPS). It’s currently in the dev branch of oref0 for anyone who wants to try it out, either one-off or for part of their dev loop. Documentation is currently here, and this is the issue in Github for logging feedback/input, along with sharing and asking questions as always in Gitter!

 

 

OpenAPS feature development in 2016

by Dana Lewis

It’s been two years since my first DIY closed loop and almost two years since OpenAPS (the vision and resulting ecosystem to help make artificial pancreas technology, DIY or otherwise, more quickly available to more people living with diabetes) was created.  I’ve spent time here (on DIYPS.org) talking about a variety of things that are applicable to people who are DIY closed looping, but also focusing on things (like how to “soak” a CGM sensorr and how to do “eating soon” mode) that may be (in my opinion) universally applicable.

OpenAPS feature development in 2016

However, I think it’s worth recapping some of the amazing work that’s been done in the OpenAPS ecosystem over the past year, sometimes behind the scenes, because there are some key features and tools that have been added in that seem small, but are really impactful for people living with DIY closed loops.

  1. Advanced meal assist (aka AMA)
    1. This is an “advanced feature” that can be turned on by OpenAPS users, and, with reliable entry of carb information, will help the closed loop assist sooner with a post-meal BG rise where there is mis-timed or insufficient insulin coverage for the meal. It’s easy to use, because the PWD only has to put carbs and a bolus in – then AMA acts based on the observed absorption. This means that if absorption is delayed because you walk home from dinner, have gastroparesis, etc., it backs off and wait until the carbs actually start taking effect (even if it is later than the human would expect).
    2. We also now have the purple line predictions back in Nightscout to visualize some of these predictions. This is a hallmark of the original iob-cob branch in Nightscout that Scott and I originally created, that took my COB calculated by DIYPS and visualized the resulting BG graph. With AMA, there are actually 3 purple lines displayed when there is carb activity. As described here in the OpenAPS docs, the top purple line assumes 10 mg/dL/5m carb (0.6 mmol/L/5m) absorption and is most accurate right after eating before carb absorption ramps up. The line that is usually in the middle is based on current carb absorption trends and is generally the most accurate once carb absorption begins; and the bottom line assumes no carb absorption and reflects insulin only. Having the 3 lines is helpful for when you do something out of the ordinary following a meal (taking a walk; taking a shower; etc.) and helps a human decide if they need to do anything or if the loop will be able to handle the resulting impact of those decisions.
  2. The approach with a “preferences” file
    1. This is the file where people can adjust default safety and other parameters, like maxIOB which defaults to 0 during a standard setup, ultimately creating a low-glucose-suspend-mode closed loop when people are first setting up their closed loops. People have to intentionally change this setting to allow the system to high temp above a netIOB = 0 amount, which is an intended safety-first approach.
    2. One particular feature (“override_high_target_with_low”) makes it easier for secondary caregivers (like school nurses) to do conservative boluses at lunch/snack time, and allow the closed loop to pick up from there. The secondary caregiver can use the bolus wizard, which will correct down to the high end of the target; and setting this value in preferences to “true” allows the closed loop to target the low end of the target. Based on anecdotal reports from those using it, this feature sounds like it’s prevented a lot of (unintentional, diabetes is hard) overreacting by secondary caregivers when the closed loop can more easily deal with BG fluctuations. The same for “carbratio_adjustmentratio”, if parents would prefer for secondary caregivers to bolus with a more conservative carb ratio, this can be set so the closed loop ultimately uses the correct carb amount for any needed additional calculations.
  3. Autosensitivity
    1. I’ve written about autosensitivity before and how impressive it has been in the face of a norovirus and not eating to have the closed loop detect excessive sensitivity and be able to deal with it – resulting in 0 lows. It’s also helpful during other minor instances of sensitivity after a few active days; or resistance due to hormone cycles and/or an aging pump site.
    2. Autosens is a feature that has to be turned on specifically (like AMA) in order for people to utilize it, because it’s making adjustments to ISF and targets and looping accordingly from those values. It also have safety caps that are set and automatically included to limit the amount of adjustment in either direction that autosens can make to any of the parameters.
  4. Tiny rigs
    1. Thanks to Intel, we were introduced to a board designer who collaborated with the OpenAPS community and inspired the creation of the “Explorer Board”. It’s a multipurpose board that can be used for home automation and all kinds of things, and it’s another tool in the toolbox of off-the-shelf and commercial hardware that can be used in an OpenAPS setup. It’s enabled us, due to the built in radio stick, to be able to drastically reduce the size of an OpenAPS setup to about the size of two Chapsticks.
  5. Setup scripts
    1. As soon as we were working on the Explorer Board, I envisioned that it would be a game changer for increasing access for those who thought a Pi was too big/too burdensome for regular use with a DIY closed loop system. I knew we had a lot of work to do to continue to improve the setup process to cut down on the friction of the setup process – but balancing that with the fact that the DIY part of setting up a closed loop system was and still is incredibly important. We then worked to create the oref0-setup script to streamline the setup process. For anyone building a loop, you still have to set up your hardware and build a system, expressing intention in many places of what you want to do and how…but it’s cut down on a lot of friction and increased the amount of energy people have left, which can instead be focused on reading the code and understanding the underlying algorithm(s) and features that they are considering using.
  6. Streamlined documentation
    1. The OpenAPS “docs” are an incredible labor of love and a testament to dozens and dozens of people who have contributed by sharing their knowledge about hardware, software, and the process it takes to weave all of these tools together. It has gotten to be very long, but given the advent of the Explorer Board hardware and the setup scripts, we were able to drastically streamline the docs and make it a lot easier to go from phase 0 (get and setup hardware, depending on the kind of gear you have); to phase 1 (monitoring and visualizing tools, like Nightscout); to phase 2 (actually setup openaps tools and build your system); to phase 3 (starting with a low glucose suspend only system and how to tune targets and settings safely); to phase 4 (iterating and improving on your system with advanced features, if one so desires). The “old” documentation and manual tool descriptions are still in the docs, but 95% of people don’t need them.
  7. IFTTT and other tool integrations
    1. It’s definitely worth calling out the integration with IFTTT that allows people to use things like Alexa, Siri, Pebble watches, Google Assistant (and just about anything else you can think of), to easily enter carbs or “modes” for OpenAPS to use, or to easily get information about the status of the system. (My personal favorite piece of this is my recent “hack” to automatically have OpenAPS trigger a “waking up” mode to combat hormone-driven BG increases that happen when I start moving around in the morning – but without having to remember to set the mode manually!)

..and that was all just things the community has done in 2016! :) There are some other exciting things that are in development and being tested right now by the community, and I look forward to sharing more as this advanced algorithm development continues.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Autosensitivity (automatically adjusting insulin sensitivity factor for insulin dosing with #OpenAPS)

by Dana Lewis

There’s a secret behind why #OpenAPS was able to deal so well with my BGs during norovirus. Namely, “autosensitivity”.

Autosensitivity (or “autosens”, for short hand) is an advanced feature that can optionally be enabled in OpenAPS.

We know how hard it is for a PWD (person with diabetes) to pay attention to all the numbers and all the things and realize when something is “off”. This could be a bad pump site, a pump site going bad, hormones from growth, hormones from menstrual cycles, sensitivity from exercise the day before, etc. So at the beginning of the year, Scott and I started brainstorming with the community about automatically detecting when the PWD is more or less sensitive to insulin than normal, and adjusting accordingly. Building on the success we’d had in DIYPS with fixed “sensitivity” and “resistance” modes, we built the feature to assess how sensitive or resistant the body is (compared to normal), rather than just a binary mode that sets a predefined response.

How OpenAPS calculates autosensitivity/how it works

It looks at each BG data point for the last 24 hours and calculates the delta (actual observed change) over the last 5 minutes. It then compares it to “BGI” (blood glucose impact, which is how much BG *should* be dropping from insulin alone), and assesses the “deviations” (differences between the delta and BGI).

When sensitivity is normal and basals are well tuned, we expect somewhere between 45-50% of non-meal deviations to be negative, and the remaining 50-55% of deviations should be positive. (To exclude meal-related deviations, we exclude overly large deviations from the sample.) So if you’re outside of that range, you are probably running sensitive or resistant, and we want to adjust accordingly. The output of the detect-sensitivity code is a single ratio number, which is then used to adjust both the baseline basal rate as well as the insulin sensitivity factor (and, optionally, BG targets).

Autosens is designed to detect to food-free downward drift, due to basal rates being too high for the current state of the body, and will adjust basals downward to compensate. The other meal-assist related portion of the algorithms do a pretty good job of dealing with larger than expected post-meal spikes due to resistance: auto-sensitivity mostly comes into play for resistance when you’re sick or otherwise riding high even without food.

Does this calculate basals?

No. Similar to everything else in OpenAPS, this works from your established basals – meaning the baseline basal rates in your pump are what the sensitivity calculations are adjusting from. If you run a marathon and your sensitivity is normally 40, it might adjust your sensitivity to 60 (meaning 1u of insulin would drop your BG an expected 60mg/dl instead of 40 mg/dl) and temporarily adjust your baseline basal rate of 1u to .6u/hour, for example.

This algorithm is simply saying “there’s something going on, let’s adjust proportionately to deal with the lower-than-usual or higher-than-usual sensitivity, regardless of cause”. It easily detects “your basals are too high and/or your ISF is too low” or “your basals are too low and/or your ISF is too high”, but actually differentiating between the effect of basal and ISF is a bit more difficult to do with a simple algorithm like this, so we’re working on a number of new algorithms and tools (see “oref0 issue 99” for our brainstorming on basal tuning and the subsequent issues linked from there) to tackle this in the future.

#OpenAPS’s autosensitivity adjustments during norovirus

After I got over the worst of the norovirus, I started looking at what OpenAPS was calculating for my sensitivity during this time. I was especially curious what would happen during the 2-3 days when I was eating very little.

My normal ISF is 40, but OpenAPS gradually calculated the shift in my sensitivity all the way to 50. That’s really sensitive, and in fact I don’t remember ever seeing a sensitivity adjustment that dramatic – but makes sense given that I usually don’t go so long without eating. (Usually when I notice I’m a little sensitive, I’ll check and see that autosens has been adjusting based on an estimated 43 or so sensitivity.)

And in later days, as expected when sick, I shifted to being more resistant. So autosens continued to assess the data and began adjusting to an estimated sensitivity of 38 as my body continued fighting the virus.

—

It is so nice to have the tools to automatically make these assessments and adjustments, rather than having to manually deal with them on top of being sick!

 

What a FDA approved commercial hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system (670G) means for #OpenAPS

by Dana Lewis

You probably heard that a commercial hybrid closed loop (the 670G) has been approved by the U.S. FDA and, like everyone else, are wondering what that means for #OpenAPS.

First commercial AID finally became available in 2016

First, here’s our initial reaction:

Thoughts-on-commercial-AID-DanaMLewis

And here are some longer form thoughts:

  • Yes, this is exciting. FDA moved months more quickly then expected (hmm, we are sensing a theme when the #WeAreNotWaiting community is involved ;)) to get this tech approved. And as we’ve experienced (check out this self-reported outcomes study with better outcomes than the pivotal trial for this new device), the results of using a hybrid closed loop are outstanding. It’s disappointing that they won’t be ready to ship until Spring 2017, but…
  • …This means the company has time to work on user guides and usability. As we’ve told every device company we’ve encountered, we (the #OpenAPS community) are happy to share everything we’ve learned. And we have learned a lot, including what it takes to trust a system, how much info is needed to help determine if additional human action is needed, what to do in all kinds of real-world situations, and more. We hope the companies continue to work with people with diabetes who have experience with this technology from both clinical trials and the DIY world, where we’ve racked up 350,000+ hours with this type of technology. Because setting expectations with users for this technology will be key for successful and sustained adoption.

This doesn’t really mean anything for #OpenAPS, though. The first generation of AP technology is similar to #OpenAPS in that it’s a hybrid closed loop that still requires the human to input carbs into the system, but it unfortunately has a set point that can not be adjusted below 120mg/dl.  For many people, this is not a big deal. But for others, this will be a deal breaker. For DIYers, that lack of customization will likely be frustrating. And for many families, the lack of remote data visualization may be another deal breaker. And, like with all new technology and devices, getting this stuff covered by insurance may be an uphill battle. So while optimistically this enables many people in the U.S. to finally access this technology (yay) without having to DIY, it won’t necessarily be truly available to everyone from a cost or access perspective for many years to come. So #OpenAPS and other DIY technology may still be needed from a cost/access perspective to continue to help fill gaps compared to current status quo with basic, non-connected diabetes devices (i.e. standalone pump and CGMs).

I also know that many of the parents of kids with T1D are disappointed, because the initial approval is for kids 14+, and it even notes that the system is not recommended for kids <7 or those taking less than 8u of insulin every day (usually young kids). I asked, suspecting it was related to occlusion, but it sounds more like they just don’t have enough data to say for sure that the system is safe with that small amount of insulin, and they’re working on additional studies to get data in that area.

Ditto, too, for more studies allowing different set points. They stuck with a 120mg/dl set point in order to speed to approval, but fingers crossed they get other studies done and new approvals from FDA before this device ships in the spring – that would be awesome. And I was glad to hear that they do have an “exercise” target of 150. That’s a bit of good…but I’m still hesitant that it is enough. From my personal experience knowing net IOB (here’s why net IOB matters) an hour before and when starting exercise is required information to help me decided whether or not I will need carbs to prevent lows during exercise. I don’t think this device will report on net IOB, but I admittedly haven’t seen the device and hopefully I’ll be proved wrong and the data available will be good enough for this purpose!

So in summary: this is good news. But we still need more FDA approved commercial options, and even with a single “commercial approved option”, it’s still ~6+ months away from reaching the hands of people with diabetes…so we as a #WeAreNotWaiting movement continue to have work to do to help speed up the processes for getting enhanced diabetes technology approved and available on the market, with access to view data the ways we need it.

—

*(Yes, in the title of the post I called it a commercial hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system. It’s a hybrid closed loop, as is #OpenAPS, but it’s also on the road/part of the suite of more complex artificial pancreas technology. I realize to many PWDs “artificial pancreas” means a lot of different things. Quite certainly, regardless of definition, an artificial pancreas or hybrid closed loop still requires a lot of work. It’s not a cure by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s easy for the media to describe it as an AP, and I also find it a lot easier to describe the small device accompanying my pump when strangers ask as an “artificial pancreas” followed by an explanation rather than saying “hybrid closed loop”.

If anything, I think having the media broadly categorize it as an AP will encourage the diabetes community to ask more questions about what exactly this tech does, leading to greater understanding and better expectations about what the device will/won’t be able to do. So this may result in a good thing.)

Our take on how to DIY closed loop, safely

by Dana Lewis
You will often see similar growth and evolution cycles across any type of online community, and the closed loop community is following this growth cycle as expected. Much like how Nightscout went from one very hard way to setup to get your CGM data in the cloud, to ultimately having dozens of DIY options and now more recently, multiple commercial options, closed looping is following similar trends. OpenAPS was the first open source option for people who wanted to DIY loop, and now there are a growing number of ways to build or run closed loops! And next year, there should be at least one commercial option publicly available in the U.S. followed by several more options in 2018 on the commercial market. Awesome! This is exactly the progress we were hoping to see, and facilitate happening more quickly, by making our work & encouraging others to make their work open source.

We’ve learned a lot (from building our own closed loop and watching others do so through OpenAPS) that we think is relevant to anyone who pursues DIY closed looping, regardless of the technology option they choose. This thought process and approach will likely also be relevant to those who switch to a closed loop commercial option in the future, so we wanted to document some of the thought process that may be involved.

Approaching closed looping safely

Before considering closed looping, people should know:

  • A (hybrid or even full) closed loop is not a cure. There will be a learning curve, much like switching to a pump for the first time.
  • Even after you get comfortable with a closed loop, there will still sometimes be high or low BGs, because we are still dealing with insulin that peaks in 60-90 minutes; we’ll still get kinked pump sites or pooled insulin; and we’ll still have hormones that drive our BGs up and down very rapidly in ways we can’t predict, but must react to. Closed looping helps a lot, but there’s still a lot that goes into managing diabetes.

Before using a DIY closed loop, people should consider:

  • Identifying or creating the method to visualize their data in a way they are comfortable with, both for real-time monitoring of loop activity and retrospective monitoring. This is a key component of DIY looping.
  • Running in “open loop” mode, where the system provides recommendations and you spend days or weeks analyzing and comparing those recommendations to how you would calculate and choose to take action manually.
  • Based on watching the “open loop” suggestions, decide your safety limits: you should set max basal and bolus rates, as well as max net IOB limits where relevant. Start conservative, knowing you can change them over time as you watch and validate how a particular DIY loop works with your body and your lifestyle.

Getting started with a DIY closed loop, people should think about the following:

  • Understand how it works, so you know how to fix it. Remember, by pursuing a DIY closed loop, you are responsible for it and the operation of it. No one is forcing you to do this; it’s one of many choices you can and will make with regards to how you personally choose to manage your diabetes.
  • But even more importantly, you need to understand how it works so you can choose if you need to step in and take manual action. You should understand how it works so you can validate “this is what it should be doing” and “I am getting the output and outcomes that I would expect if I were doing this decision making manually”.
  • Often, people will get frustrated by diabetes and take actions that the loop then has to compensate for. Or they’ll get lax on when they meal bolus, or not enter carbs into the system, etc. You will get much better results by putting better data into the system, and also by having a better understanding of insulin timing in your body, especially at meal times. Using techniques like “eating soon mode” will dramatically help anyone, with or without a closed loop, reduce and limit severity of meal spikes. Ditto goes for having good CGM “calibration hygiene” (h/t to Pete for this phrase) and ensuring you have thought about the ramifications of automating insulin dosing based on CGM data, and how you may or may not want to loop if you doubt your CGM data. (Like “eating soon”, ‘soaking’ a CGM sensor may yield you better first day results.)
  • Start with higher targets for the loop than you might correct to manually.
  • Move first from an “open loop” mode to a “low glucose suspend” type mode first, where max net IOB is 0 and/or max basal is set at or just above your max daily scheduled basal, so it low temps to prevent and limit lows, but does not high temp above bringing net IOB back to 0.
  • Gradually increase max net IOB above 0 (and/or increase max basal) every few days after several days without low BGs; similarly, adjust targets down 10 points for every few days gone without experiencing low BGs.
  • Test basic algorithms and adjust targets and various max rates before moving on to testing advanced features. (It will be a lot easier to troubleshoot, and learn how a new feature works, if you’re not also adjusting to closed looping in its entirety).
This is our (Dana & Scott‘s) take on things to think about before and when pursuing a closed loop option. But there’s about a hundred others running around the world with closed loops, too, so if you have input to share with people that they should consider before looping, leave a comment below! :) And if you’re looking to DIY closed loop before a commercial solution is available, you might also be interested in checking out the OpenAPS Reference Design and some FAQs related to OpenAPS.

What we heard and saw at #DData16 and #2016ADA

by Dana Lewis

As mentioned in the previous post, we had the privilege of coming to New Orleans this past weekend for two events – #DData16 and the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions (#2016ADA). A few things stuck out, which I wanted to highlight here.

At #DData16:

  • The focus was on artificial pancreas, and there was a great panel moderated by Howard Look with several of the AP makers. I was struck by how many of them referenced or made mention of #OpenAPS or the DIY/#WeAreNotWaiting movement, and the need for industry to collaborate with the DIY community (yes).
  • I was also floored when someone from Dexcom referenced having read one of my older blog posts that mentioned a question of why ??? was displayed to me instead of the information about what was actually going on with my sensor. It was a great reminder to me of how important it is for us to speak up and keep sharing our experiences and help device manufacturers know what we need for current and future products, the ones we use every day to help keep us alive.
  • Mark Wilson gave a PHENOMENAL presentation, using a great analogy about driving and accessing the dashboard to help people understand why people with diabetes might choose to DIY. He also talked about his experiences with #OpenAPS, and I highly recommend watching it. (Kudos to Wes for livestreaming it and making it broadly available to all – watch it here!) I’ve mentioned Mark & his DIY-ing here before, especially because one of his creations (the Urchin watchface) is one of my favorite ways to help me view my data, my way.
  • Howard DM’ed me in the middle of the day to ask if I minded going up as part of the patient panel of people with AP experiences. I wasn’t sure what the topic was, but the questions allowed us to talk about our experiences with AP (and in my case, I’ve been using a hybrid closed loop for something like 557 or so days at this point). I made several points about the need for a “plug n play” system, with modularity so I can choose the best pump, sensor, and algorithm for me – which may or may not be made all by the same company. (This is also FDA’s vision for the future, and Dr. Courtney Lias both gave a good presentation on this topic and was engaged in the event’s conversation all day!).

At #2016ADA:

  • There needs to be a patient research access program developed (not just by the American Diabetes Association for their future Scientific Sessions meetings, but at all scientific and academic conferences). Technology has enabled patients to make significant contributions to the medical and scientific fields, and cost and access are huge barriers to preventing this knowledge from scaling. At #2016ADA, “patient” is not even an option on the back of the registration form. Scott and I are privileged that we could potentially pay for this, but we don’t think we should have to pay ($410 for a day pass or $900 for a weekend pass) so much when we are not backed by industry or an academic organization of any sort. (As a side note, a big thank you to the many people who have a) engaged in discussion around this topic b) helped reach out to contacts at ADA to discuss this topic and c) asked about ways to contribute to the cost of us presenting this research this weekend.)
  • We presented research from 18 of the first 40 users of #OpenAPS. You can find the FULL CONTENT of our findings and the research poster content in this post on OpenAPS.org. We specifically posted our content online (and tweeted it out – see this thread) for a few reasons:
    • First, everything about #OpenAPS is open source. The content of our poster or any presentation is similarly open source.
    • Not everyone had time to come by the poster.
    • Not everyone has the privilege or funds to attend #2016ADA, and there’s no reason not to share this content online, especially when we will likely get more knowledge sharing as a result of doing so.
  • With the above in mind, we encouraged people stopping by to take whatever photos of our poster that they wanted, and told them about the content being posted online. (And in fact, in addition to the blog post about the poster, that information is now on the “Outcomes” page on OpenAPS.org.)
  • Frustratingly, some people were asked to take down posted photos of our poster. If anyone received such a note, please feel free to pass on my tweet that you have authorization by the authors to have taken/used the photo. This is another area (like the need to develop patient research access programs) that needs to be figured out by scientific/academic conferences – presenters/authors should be able to specifically allow sharing and dissemination of information that they are presenting.
  • Speaking of photos, I was surprised that around half a dozen clinicians (HCPs) stopped by and made mention of having used the picture of the #OpenAPS rig and the story of #OpenAPS in one of their presentations! I am thrilled this story is spreading, and being spread even by people we haven’t had direct contact with previously! (Feel free to use this photo in presentations, too, although I’d love to hear about your presentation and see a copy of it!)
  • We had many amazing conversations during the poster session on Sunday. It was scheduled for two hours (12-2pm), but we ended up being there around four hours and had hundreds of fantastic dialogues. Here were some of the most common themes of conversation:
    • Why are patients doing this?
      • Here’s my why: I originally needed louder alarms, built a smart alarm system that had predictive alerts and turned into an open loop system, and ultimately realized I could close the loop.
    • What can we learn from the people who are DIY-ing?
    • How can we further study the DIY closed loop community?
      • This is my second favorite topic, which touches on a few things – 1) the plan to do a follow up study of the larger cohort (since we now have (n=1)*84 loopers) with a full retrospective analysis of the data rather than just self-reported outcomes, as this study used; 2) ideas around doing a comparison study between one or more of the #OpenAPS algorithms and some of the commercial or academic algorithms; 3) ideas to use some of the #OpenAPS-developed tools (like a basal tuning tool that we are planning to build) in a clinical trial to help HCPs help patients adjust more quickly and easily to pump therapy.
    • What other pumps will work with this? How can there be more access to this type of DIY technology?
      • We utilize older pumps that allow us to send temp basal commands; we would love to use a more modern pump that’s able to be purchased on the market today, and had several conversations with device manufacturers about how that might be possible;  we’ll continue to have these conversations until it becomes a reality.
  • There is some great coverage coming of the poster & the #OpenAPS community, and I’ll post links here as I see them come out. For starters, Dave deBronkart did a 22 minute interview with Scott & I, which you can see here. DiabetesMine also included mention of the #OpenAPS poster in their conference roundup. And diaTribe wrote up the the poster as a “new now next”! Plus, WebMD wrote an article on #OpenAPS and the poster as well.
A picture of our #ADA2016 poster in the exhibit hall

Scott and I walked away from this weekend with energy for new collaborations (and new contacts for clinical trial and retrospective analysis partnerships) and several ideas for the next phase of studies that we want to plan in partnership with the #OpenAPS community. (We were blown away to discover that OpenAPS advanced meal assist algorithm is considered by some experts to be one of the most advanced and aggressive algorithms in existence for managing post-meal BG, and may be more advanced than anything that has yet been tested in clinical trials.) Stay tuned for more!

Research studies and usability thoughts

by Dana Lewis
It’s been a busy couple (ok, more than couple) of months since we last blogged here related to developments from #DIYPS and #OpenAPS. (For context, #DIYPS is Dana’s personal system that started as a louder alarms system and evolved into an open loop and then closed loop (background here). #OpenAPS is the open source reference design that enables anyone to build their own DIY closed loop artificial pancreas. See www.OpenAPS.org for more about that specifically.)

We’ve instead spent time spreading the word about OpenAPS in other channels (in the Wall Street Journal; on WNYC’s Only Human podcast; in a keynote at OSCON, and many other places like at the White House), further developing OpenAPS algorithms (incorporating “eating soon mode” and temporary targets in addition to building in auto-sensitivity and meal assist features), working our day jobs, traveling, and more of all of the above.

Some of the biggest improvements we’ve made to OpenAPS recently have been usability improvements. In February, someone kindly did the soldering of an Edison/Rileylink “rig” for me. This was just after I did a livestream Q&A with the TuDiabetes community, saying that I didn’t mind the size of my Raspberry Pi rig. I don’t. It works, it’s an artificial pancreas, the size doesn’t matter.

That being said… Wow! Having a small rig that clips to my pocket does wonders for being able to just run out the door and go to dinner, run an errand, go on an actual run, and more. I could do all those things before, but downsizing the rig makes it even easier, and it’s a fantastic addition to the already awesome experience of having a closed loop for the past 18 months (and >11,000 hours of looping). I’m so thankful for all of the people (Pete on Rileylink, Oscar on mmeowlink, Toby for soldering my first Edison rig for me, and many many others) who have been hard at work enabling more hardware options for OpenAPS, in addition to everyone who’s been contributing to algorithm improvements, assisting with improving the documentation, helping other people navigate the setup process, and more!

List of hardware for OpenAPS
That leads me to today. I just finished participating in a month-long usability study focused on OpenAPS users. (One of the cool parts was that several OpenAPS users contributed heavily to the design of the study, too!) We tracked every day (for up to 30 days) any time we interacted with the loop/system, and it was fascinating.

At one point, for a stretch of 3 days, we counted how many times we looked at our BGs. Between my watch, 3 phone apps/ways to view my data, the CGM receivers, Scott’s watch, the iPad by the bed, etc: dozens and dozens of glances. I wasn’t too surprised at how many times I glance/notice my BGs or what the loop is doing, but I bet other people are. Even with a closed loop, I still have diabetes and it still requires me to pay attention to it. I don’t *have* to pay attention as often as I would without a closed loop, and the outcomes are significantly better, but it’s still important to note that the human is still ultimately in control and responsible for keeping an eye on their system.

That’s one of the things I’ve been thinking about lately: the need to set expectations when a loop comes out on the commercial market and is more widely available. A closed loop is a tool, but it’s not a cure. Managing type 1 diabetes will still require a lot of work, even with a polished commercial APS: you’ll still need to deal with BG checks, CGM calibrations, site changes, dealing with sites and sensors that fall out or get ripped out…  And of course there will still be days where you’re sensitive or resistant and BGs are not perfect for whatever reason. In addition, it will take time to transition from the standard of care as we have it today (pump, CGM, but no algorithms and no connected devices) to open and/or closed loops.

This is one of the things among many that we are hoping to help the diabetes community with as a result of the many (80+ as of June 8, 2016!) users with #OpenAPS. We have learned a lot about trusting a closed loop system, about what it takes to transition, how to deal if the system you trust breaks, and how to use more data than you’re used to getting in order to improve diabetes care.

As a step to helping the healthcare provider community start thinking about some of these things, the #OpenAPS community submitted a poster that was accepted and will be presented this weekend at the 2016 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions meeting. This will be the first data published from the community, and it’s significant because it’s a study BY the community itself. We’re also working with other clinical research partners on various studies (in addition to the usability study, other studies to more thoroughly examine data from the community) for the future, but this study was a completely volunteer DIY effort, just like the entire OpenAPS movement has been.

Our hope is that clinicians walk away this weekend with insight into how engaged patients are and can be with their care, and a new way of having conversations with patients about the tools they are choosing to use and/or build. (And hopefully we’ll help many of them develop a deeper understanding of how artificial pancreas technology works: #OpenAPS is a great learning tool not only for patients, but also for all the physicians who have not had any patients on artificial pancreas systems yet.)

Stay tuned: the poster is embargoed until Saturday morning, but we’ll be sharing our results online beginning this weekend once the embargo lifts! (The hashtag for the conference is #2016ADA, and we’ll of course be posting via @OpenAPS and to #OpenAPS with the data and any insights coming out of the conference.)