ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2024
Improving the detection of sleep slow oscillations in electroencephalographic data.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study objectives: We aimed to build a tool which facilitates manual labeling of sleep slow oscillations (SOs) and evaluate the performance of traditional sleep SO detection algorithms on such a manually labeled data set. We sought to develop improved methods for SO detection. Method: SOs in polysomnographic recordings acquired during nap time from ten older adults were manually labeled using a custom built graphical user interface tool. Three automatic SO detection algorithms previously used in the literature were evaluated on this data set. Additional machine learning and deep learning algorithms were trained on the manually labeled data set. Results: Our custom built tool significantly decreased the time needed for manual labeling, allowing us to manually inspect 96,277 potential SO events. The three automatic SO detection algorithms showed relatively low accuracy (max. 61.08%), but results were qualitatively similar, with SO density and amplitude increasing with sleep depth. The machine learning and deep learning algorithms showed higher accuracy (best: 99.20%) while maintaining a low prediction time. Conclusions: Accurate detection of SO events is important for investigating their role in memory consolidation. In this context, our tool and proposed methods can provide significant help in identifying these events.
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.