ArticleJournal of sleep research2025
Retrospective validation of automatic sleep analysis with grey areas model for human-in-the-loop scoring approach.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2025. 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.
- Artificial intelligence in sleep diagnostics for children under 2 years of age: state of the evidence and future directions.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Automated sleep stage and event detection algorithms using quality-controlled polysomnography annotations.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2026Article
- Temporally Continuous Automated Sleep-Wake Classification Using Deep Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Retrospective validation of automatic sleep analysis with grey areas model for human-in-the-loop scoring approach.Journal of sleep research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
State-of-the-art automatic sleep staging methods have demonstrated comparable reliability and superior time efficiency to manual sleep staging. However, fully automatic black-box solutions are difficult to adapt into clinical workflow due to the lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Transparency would be crucial for interaction between automatic methods and the work of sleep experts, i.e., in human-in-the-loop applications. To address these challenges, we propose an automatic sleep staging model (aSAGA) that effectively utilises both electroencephalography and electro-oculography channels while incorporating transparency of uncertainty in the decision-making process. We validated the model through extensive retrospective testing using a range of datasets, including open-access, clinical, and research-driven sources. Our channel-wise ensemble model, trained on both electroencephalography and electro-oculography signals, demonstrated robustness and the ability to generalise across various types of sleep recordings, including novel self-applied home polysomnography. Additionally, we compared model uncertainty with human uncertainty in sleep staging and studied various uncertainty mapping metrics to identify ambiguous regions, or "grey areas", that may require manual re-evaluation. The validation of this grey area concept revealed its potential to enhance sleep staging accuracy and to highlight regions in the recordings where sleep experts may struggle to reach a consensus. In conclusion, this study provides a technical basis and understanding of automatic sleep staging uncertainty. Our approach has the potential to improve the integration of automatic sleep staging into clinical practice; however, further studies are needed to test the model prospectively in real-world clinical settings and human-in-the-loop scoring applications.
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.