ArticleSleep2023
Multi-scored sleep databases: how to exploit the multiple-labels in automated sleep scoring.
Article in Sleep, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- REST-a deep learning tool for automated mouse sleep stage classification.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2026Article
- An explainable deep learning approach for sleep staging in sleep apnea patients across all age subgroups from pulse oximetry signals.Engineering applications of artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- SLEEPYLAND: trust begins with fair evaluation of automatic sleep staging models.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Sleep Identification Enabled by Supervised Training Algorithms (SIESTA): An Open-Source Platform for Automatic Sleep Staging of Rodent Electrocorticographic and Electromyographic Data.Journal of biological rhythms · 2025Article
- Performance of wearable finger ring trackers for diagnostic sleep measurement in the clinical context.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ZleepAnlystNet: a novel deep learning model for automatic sleep stage scoring based on single-channel raw EEG data using separating training.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Somnotate: A probabilistic sleep stage classifier for studying vigilance state transitions.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Comparison analysis between standard polysomnographic data and in-ear-electroencephalography signals: a preliminary study.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2024Article
- Enhanced sleep staging with artificial intelligence: a validation study of new software for sleep scoring.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Overview of the hypnodensity approach to scoring sleep for polysomnography and home sleep testing.Frontiers in sleep · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesInter-scorer variability in scoring polysomnograms is a well-known problem. Most of the existing automated sleep scoring systems are trained using labels annotated by a single-scorer, whose subjective evaluation is transferred to the model. When annotations from two or more scorers are available, the scoring models are usually trained on the scorer consensus. The averaged scorer's subjectivity is transferred into the model, losing information about the internal variability among different scorers. In this study, we aim to insert the multiple-knowledge of the different physicians into the training procedure. The goal is to optimize a model training, exploiting the full information that can be extracted from the consensus of a group of scorers.
methodsWe train two lightweight deep learning-based models on three different multi-scored databases. We exploit the label smoothing technique together with a soft-consensus (LSSC) distribution to insert the multiple-knowledge in the training procedure of the model. We introduce the averaged cosine similarity metric (ACS) to quantify the similarity between the hypnodensity-graph generated by the models with-LSSC and the hypnodensity-graph generated by the scorer consensus.
resultsThe performance of the models improves on all the databases when we train the models with our LSSC. We found an increase in ACS (up to 6.4%) between the hypnodensity-graph generated by the models trained with-LSSC and the hypnodensity-graph generated by the consensus.
conclusionOur approach definitely enables a model to better adapt to the consensus of the group of scorers. Future work will focus on further investigations on different scoring architectures and hopefully large-scale-heterogeneous multi-scored datasets.
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.