Evaluates imputation methods for glucose data, showing adjusted M-H algorithm improves policy outputs.
Missing data in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) poses a significant challenge for applying sequential decision-making models to diabetes management. This study evaluates how missing-data imputation affects downstream Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP)-based policy outputs using real CGM trajectories from the Stanford Continuous Glucose Monitoring Database. Three imputation methods are compared: mean imputation, linear interpolation, and a bridge-based adjusted Metropolis-Hastings (M-H) algorithm. The adjusted M-H algorithm incorporates a local temporal bridge, Markovian state-transition information, and a smoothness constraint to generate model-compatible imputations. Numerical experiments are conducted under two missingness scenarios, random missingness and block missingness, with missing rates of 5%, 15%, and 25%. The methods are evaluated using mean squared imputation error (MSIE), policy disagreement rate, and absolute reward gap relative to the complete-data POMDP benchmark. The results show that mean imputation produces substantially larger reconstruction errors and greater downstream POMDP deviations across missingness scenarios. Linear interpolation and adjusted M-H both preserve CGM trajectories and POMDP-derived policy outputs much better than mean imputation. Linear interpolation achieves slightly lower global MSIE under random missingness, whereas adjusted M-H shows comparable POMDP-level performance and local advantages in nonlinear postprandial trajectories and block-missing segments. These findings suggest that temporally informed imputation methods are preferable to mean imputation for incomplete CGM data, and that adjusted M-H provides a model-compatible alternative for preserving sequential decision outputs under partially observed glucose trajectories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: