ArticleDigital health
Validation of the influence of biosignals on performance of machine learning algorithms for sleep stage classification.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sleep stage identification is critical in multiple areas (e.g. medicine or psychology) to diagnose sleep-related disorders. Previous studies have reported that the performance of machine learning algorithms can be changed depending on the biosignals and feature-extraction processes in sleep stage classification. Methods: To compare as many conditions as possible, 414 experimental conditions were applied, considering the combination of different biosignals, biosignal length, and window length. Five biosignals in polysomnography (i.e. electrocardiogram (ECG), electroencephalogram (EEG), electromyogram (EMG), electrooculogram left, and electrooculogram right) were used to identify optimal signal combinations for classification. In addition, three different signal-length conditions and six different window-length conditions were applied. The validity of each condition was examined via classification performance from the XGBoost classifiers trained using 10-fold cross-validation. Furthermore, results considering feature importance were examined to validate the experimental results in terms of model explanation. Results: The combination of EEG + EMG + ECG with a 40 s window and 120 s signal length resulted in the best classification performance (precision: 0.853, recall: 0.855, F1-score: 0.853, and accuracy: 0.853). Compared to other conditions and feature importance results, EEG signals showed a relatively higher importance for classification in the present study. Conclusion: We determined the optimal biosignal and window conditions for the feature-extraction process in machine learning algorithm-based sleep stage classification. Our experimental results inform researchers in the future conduct of related studies. To generalize our results, more diverse methodologies and conditions should be applied 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.