ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2017
Support vector machines for automated snoring detection: proof-of-concept.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How to objectively measure snoring: a systematic review.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2024Pooled it
- Prediction of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Based on Respiratory Sounds Recorded Between Sleep Onset and Sleep Offset.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSnoring has been shown to be associated with adverse physical and mental health, independent of the effects of sleep disordered breathing. Despite increasing evidence for the risks of snoring, few studies on sleep and health include objective measures of snoring. One reason for this methodological limitation is the difficulty of quantifying snoring. Conventional methods may rely on manual scoring of snore events by trained human scorers, but this process is both time- and labor-intensive, making the measurement of objective snoring impractical for large or multi-night studies.
methodsThe current study is a proof-of-concept to validate the use of support vector machines (SVM), a form of machine learning, for the automated scoring of an objective snoring signal. An SVM algorithm was trained and tested on a set of approximately 150,000 snoring and non-snoring data segments, and F-scores for SVM performance compared to visual scoring performance were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data.
resultsThe ability of the SVM algorithm to discriminate snore from non-snore segments of data did not differ statistically from visual scorer performance (SVM F-score = 82.46 ± 7.93 versus average visual F-score = 88.35 ± 4.61, p = 0.2786), supporting SVM snore classification ability comparable to visual scorers.
conclusionIn this proof-of-concept, we established that the SVM algorithm performs comparably to trained visual scorers, supporting the use of SVM for automated snoring detection in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.