Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217081›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022

Automated Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events.

Peter Anderer, Marco Ross, Andreas Cerny, Edmund Shaw

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors.

Peter AndererPhilips Sleep and Respiratory Care, Vienna, Austria. peter.anderer@philips.com.
Marco RossPhilips Sleep and Respiratory Care, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas CernyPhilips Sleep and Respiratory Care, Vienna, Austria.
Edmund ShawPhilips Sleep and Respiratory Care, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventionally, sleep and associated events are scored visually by trained technologists according to the rules summarized in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Manual. Since its first publication in 2007, the manual was continuously updated; the most recent version as of this writing was published in 2020. Human expert scoring is considered as gold standard, even though there is increasing evidence of limited interrater reliability between human scorers. Significant advances in machine learning have resulted in powerful methods for addressing complex classification problems such as automated scoring of sleep and associated events. Evidence is increasing that these autoscoring systems deliver performance comparable to manual scoring and offer several advantages to visual scoring: (1) avoidance of the rather expensive, time-consuming, and difficult visual scoring task that can be performed only by well-trained and experienced human scorers, (2) attainment of consistent scoring results, and (3) proposition of added value such as scoring in real time, sleep stage probabilities per epoch (hypnodensity), estimates of signal quality and sleep/wake-related features, identifications of periods with clinically relevant ambiguities (confidence trends), configurable sensitivity and rule settings, as well as cardiorespiratory sleep staging for home sleep apnea testing. This chapter describes the development of autoscoring systems since the first attempts in the 1970s up to the most recent solutions based on deep neural network approaches which achieve an accuracy that allows to use the autoscoring results directly for review and interpretation by a physician.

Indexed as

Sleep Apnea SyndromesSleep StagesHumansNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsSleepUnited StatesClassifier architectureDeep learningFeature extractionHypnodensity graphPhysician-ready autoscoringSleep stage probabilities

Identifiers

PMID36217081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.