ReviewBiomedical engineering letters2023
Towards automatic EEG cyclic alternating pattern analysis: a systematic review.
Review in Biomedical engineering letters, 2023. 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.
- MAF-SleepNet: A Multimodal Attention-Enhanced Fusion Network for Automatic Multi-Class Sleep Disorder Classification from Polysomnography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mapping nocturnal arousal across sleep and pain disorders.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Polysomnography in Transition: Reassessing Its Role in the Future of Sleep Medicine.Journal of sleep research · 2025Review
- EEG based classification of sleep cyclic alternating patterns using frequency driven forward ternary encoding.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2025Article
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
This study conducted a systematic review to determine the feasibility of automatic Cyclic Alternating Pattern (CAP) analysis. Specifically, this review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to address the formulated research question: is automatic CAP analysis viable for clinical application? From the identified 1,280 articles, the review included 35 studies that proposed various methods for examining CAP, including the classification of A phase, their subtypes, or the CAP cycles. Three main trends were observed over time regarding A phase classification, starting with mathematical models or features classified with a tuned threshold, followed by using conventional machine learning models and, recently, deep learning models. Regarding the CAP cycle detection, it was observed that most studies employed a finite state machine to implement the CAP scoring rules, which depended on an initial A phase classifier, stressing the importance of developing suitable A phase detection models. The assessment of A-phase subtypes has proven challenging due to various approaches used in the state-of-the-art for their detection, ranging from multiclass models to creating a model for each subtype. The review provided a positive answer to the main research question, concluding that automatic CAP analysis can be reliably performed. The main recommended research agenda involves validating the proposed methodologies on larger datasets, including more subjects with sleep-related disorders, and providing the source code for independent confirmation.
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.