ArticleNature and science of sleep2021
Confidence-Based Framework Using Deep Learning for Automated Sleep Stage Scoring.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Lightweight Neural Network Based on Memory and Transition Probability for Accurate Real-Time Sleep Stage Classification.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Retrospective validation of automatic sleep analysis with grey areas model for human-in-the-loop scoring approach.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Bridging AI and Clinical Practice: Integrating Automated Sleep Scoring Algorithm with Uncertainty-Guided Physician Review.Nature and science of sleep · 2024Article
- Accuracy of 11 Wearable, Nearable, and Airable Consumer Sleep Trackers: Prospective Multicenter Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesAutomated sleep stage scoring is not yet vigorously used in practice because of the black-box nature and the risk of wrong predictions. The objective of this study was to introduce a confidence-based framework to detect the possibly wrong predictions that would inform clinicians about which epochs would require a manual review and investigate the potential to improve accuracy for automated sleep stage scoring.
methodsWe used 702 polysomnography studies from a local clinical dataset (SNUBH dataset) and 2804 from an open dataset (SHHS dataset) for experiments. We adapted the state-of-the-art TinySleepNet architecture to train the classifier and modified the ConfidNet architecture to train an auxiliary confidence model. For the confidence model, we developed a novel method, Dropout Correct Rate (DCR), and the performance of it was compared with other existing methods.
resultsConfidence estimates (0.754) reflected accuracy (0.758) well in general. The best performance for differentiating correct and wrong predictions was shown when using the DCR method (AUROC: 0.812) compared to the existing approaches which largely failed to detect wrong predictions. By reviewing only 20% of epochs that received the lowest confidence values, the overall accuracy of sleep stage scoring was improved from 76% to 87%. For patients with reduced accuracy (ie, individuals with obesity or severe sleep apnea), the possible improvement range after applying confidence estimation was even greater.
conclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study applying confidence estimation on automated sleep stage scoring. Reliable confidence estimates by the DCR method help screen out most of the wrong predictions, which would increase the reliability and interpretability of automated sleep stage scoring.
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.