From Prediction to Practice: A Task-Aware Evaluation Framework for Blood Glucose Forecasting

TL;DR

This paper proposes a task-aware evaluation framework for blood glucose forecasting that emphasizes clinical relevance over aggregate accuracy, incorporating real-world and simulated assessments for decision support.

Contribution

It introduces a novel evaluation framework that assesses models on operational alarm metrics and intervention response prediction, highlighting gaps between accuracy and clinical usefulness.

Findings

Models with high overall recall can fail in critical post-bolus scenarios.

Forecasting accuracy does not necessarily translate to effective insulin dosing predictions.

The framework reveals significant gaps between model accuracy and clinical decision support utility.

Abstract

Clinical time-series forecasting is increasingly studied for decision support, yet standard aggregate metrics can obscure whether a model is actually useful for the task it is meant to serve. In safety-critical settings, low average error can coexist with dangerous failures in exactly the high-risk regimes that matter most. We present a task-aware evaluation framework for blood glucose forecasting built around two downstream uses: hypoglycemia early warning and insulin dosing decision support. For early warning, we evaluate on real data from three clinical cohorts using event-level recall and false alarms per patient-day, metrics that reflect operational alarm burden rather than aggregate accuracy. We show that models appearing acceptable overall, with recall above 0.9 on the full test set, can fail badly in the post-bolus slice, where insulin-on-board is elevated and missed warnings carry the greatest clinical consequences. Standard forecasting evaluation, however, does not test whether a model can reason about the effects of actions, a requirement for supporting insulin dosing decisions. We therefore add a second, interventional arm using the FDA-accepted UVA/Padova simulator, where we evaluate whether forecasters can predict glucose responses to altered insulin plans in paired factual/counterfactual scenarios. We show that models that look strong on real-data forecasting often fail to predict the direction, magnitude, or ranking of intervention effects, and choose poor insulin doses when evaluated under a clinically motivated cost. Taken together, the two arms reveal a consistent gap between forecasting accuracy and task-relevant usefulness. We release the benchmark, the standardized preprocessing pipeline for public cohorts, and the simulator-based interventional dataset as a reproducible toolkit.