Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31358781›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Generalizability of A Neural Network Model for Circadian Phase Prediction in Real-World Conditions.

Julia E Stone, Andrew J K Phillips, Suzanne Ftouni, Michelle Magee, Mark Howard, Steven W Lockley, Tracey L Sletten, Clare Anderson, Shantha M W Rajaratnam, Svetlana Postnova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Integrating wearable data into circadian models.Current opinion in systems biology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Julia E StoneCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. julia.stone@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7706-7471
Andrew J K PhillipsCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Suzanne FtouniCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michelle MageeCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark HowardCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Steven W LockleyCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tracey L SlettenCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Clare AndersonCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Shantha M W RajaratnamCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Svetlana PostnovaCooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A neural network model was previously developed to predict melatonin rhythms accurately from blue light and skin temperature recordings in individuals on a fixed sleep schedule. This study aimed to test the generalizability of the model to other sleep schedules, including rotating shift work. Ambulatory wrist blue light irradiance and skin temperature data were collected in 16 healthy individuals on fixed and habitual sleep schedules, and 28 rotating shift workers. Artificial neural network models were trained to predict the circadian rhythm of (i) salivary melatonin on a fixed sleep schedule; (ii) urinary aMT6s on both fixed and habitual sleep schedules, including shift workers on a diurnal schedule; and (iii) urinary aMT6s in rotating shift workers on a night shift schedule. To determine predicted circadian phase, center of gravity of the fitted bimodal skewed baseline cosine curve was used for melatonin, and acrophase of the cosine curve for aMT6s. On a fixed sleep schedule, the model predicted melatonin phase to within ± 1 hour in 67% and ± 1.5 hours in 100% of participants, with mean absolute error of 41 ± 32 minutes. On diurnal schedules, including shift workers, the model predicted aMT6s acrophase to within ± 1 hour in 66% and ± 2 hours in 87% of participants, with mean absolute error of 63 ± 67 minutes. On night shift schedules, the model predicted aMT6s acrophase to within ± 1 hour in 42% and ± 2 hours in 53% of participants, with mean absolute error of 143 ± 155 minutes. Prediction accuracy was similar when using either 1 (wrist) or 11 skin temperature sensor inputs. These findings demonstrate that the model can predict circadian timing to within ± 2 hours for the vast majority of individuals on diurnal schedules, using blue light and a single temperature sensor. However, this approach did not generalize to night shift conditions.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmModels, BiologicalNeural Networks, ComputerAdultBiomarkersFemaleHumansLightMaleMelatoninMiddle AgedShift Work ScheduleSkin TemperatureSleepWork Schedule ToleranceYoung AdultBiomarkersMelatonin

Identifiers

PMID31358781
PMCPMC6662750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.