ArticleJournal of sleep research2024
Technical challenges in REM sleep microstructure classification: A study of patients with REM sleep behaviour disorder.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical challenges in REM sleep microstructure classification: A study of patients with REM sleep behaviour disorder.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- Automated EEG-based sleep staging in REM sleep behavior disorder using MSIF-Net: epoch-level validation and whole-night clinical agreement.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
Abstract
While commonly treated as a uniform state in practice, rapid eye movement sleep contains two distinct microstructures-phasic (presence of rapid eye movement) and tonic (no rapid eye movement). This study aims to identify technical challenges during rapid eye movement sleep microstructure visual classification in patients with rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, and to propose solutions to enhance reliability between scorers. Fifty-seven sleep recordings were randomly allocated into three subsequent batches (n = 10, 13 and 34) for scoring. To reduce single-centre bias, we recruited three raters/scorers, with each trained from a different institution. Two raters independently scored each 30-s rapid eye movement sleep into 10 × fSEM3-s phasic/tonic microstructures based on the AASM guidelines. The third rater acted as an "arbitrator" to resolve opposite opinions persisting during the revision between batches. Besides interrater differences in artefact rejection rate, interrater variance frequently occurred due to transitioning between microstructures and moderate-to-severe muscular/electrode artefact interference. To enhance interrater agreement, a rapid eye movement scoring schematic graph was developed, incorporating proxy electrode use, filters and cut-offs for microstructure transitioning. To assess potential effectiveness of the schematic graph proposed, raters were instructed to systematically apply it in scoring for the third batch. Of the 34 recordings, 27 reached a Cohen's kappa score above 0.8 (i.e. almost perfect agreement between raters), significantly improved from the prior batches (p = 0.0003, Kruskal-Wallis test). Our study illustrated potential solutions and guidance for challenges that may be encountered during rapid eye movement sleep microstructure classification.
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.