ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Self-supervised learning of accelerometer data provides new insights for sleep and its association with mortality.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Sleep is essential to life. Accurate measurement and classification of sleep/wake and sleep stages is important in clinical studies for sleep disorder diagnoses and in the interpretation of data from consumer devices for monitoring physical and mental well-being. Existing non-polysomnography sleep classification techniques mainly rely on heuristic methods developed in relatively small cohorts. Thus, we aimed to establish the accuracy of wrist-worn accelerometers for sleep stage classification and subsequently describe the association between sleep duration and efficiency (proportion of total time asleep when in bed) with mortality outcomes. Methods: We developed and validated a self-supervised deep neural network for sleep stage classification using concurrent laboratory-based polysomnography and accelerometry data from three countries (Australia, the UK, and the USA). The model was validated within-cohort using subject-wise five-fold cross-validation for sleep-wake classification and in a three-class setting for sleep stage classification wake, rapid-eye-movement sleep (REM), non-rapid-eye-movement sleep (NREM) and by external validation. We assessed the face validity of our model for population inference by applying the model to the UK Biobank with 100,000 participants, each of whom wore a wristband for up to seven days. The derived sleep parameters were used in a Cox regression model to study the association of sleep duration and sleep efficiency with all-cause mortality. Findings: After exclusion, 1,448 participant nights of data were used to train the sleep classifier. The difference between polysomnography and the model classifications on the external validation was 34.7 minutes (95% limits of agreement (LoA): -37.8 to 107.2 minutes) for total sleep duration, 2.6 minutes for REM duration (95% LoA: -68.4 to 73.4 minutes) and 32.1 minutes (95% LoA: -54.4 to 118.5 minutes) for NREM duration. The derived sleep architecture estimate in the UK Biobank sample showed good face validity. Among 66,214 UK Biobank participants, 1,642 mortality events were observed. Short sleepers (<6 hours) had a higher risk of mortality compared to participants with normal sleep duration (6 to 7.9 hours), regardless of whether they had low sleep efficiency (Hazard ratios (HRs): 1.69; 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.28 to 2.24 ) or high sleep efficiency (HRs: 1.42; 95% CIs: 1.14 to 1.77). Interpretation: Deep-learning-based sleep classification using accelerometers has a fair to moderate agreement with polysomnography. Our findings suggest that having short overnight sleep confers mortality risk irrespective of sleep continuity.
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.