Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41424496›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sleep2024

Validation of spectral sleep scoring with polysomnography using forehead EEG device.

Julie A Onton, Katherine C Simon, Allison B Morehouse, Alessandra E Shuster, Jing Zhang, Andres A Peña, Sara C Mednick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julie A OntonInstitute for Neural Computation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Katherine C SimonDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Allison B MorehouseDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, Sleep and Cognition Lab, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Alessandra E ShusterDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, Sleep and Cognition Lab, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, Sleep and Cognition Lab, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Andres A PeñaDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, Sleep and Cognition Lab, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Sara C MednickDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, Sleep and Cognition Lab, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Visual scoring of sleep electroencephalography (EEG) has long been considered the gold standard for sleep staging. However, it has several drawbacks, including high cost, time-intensiveness, vulnerability to human variability, discomfort to patients, lack of visualization to validate the hypnogram, and no acknowledgment of differences between delta and slow oscillation deep sleep. This report highlights a spectral scoring approach that addresses all these shortcomings of visual scoring. Past algorithms have used spectral information to help classify traditional visual stages. The current method used the clearly visible spectral patterns to develop new spectral stages, which are similar to but not the same as visual stages. Importantly, spectral scoring delivers both a hypnogram and a whole-night spectrogram, which can be visually inspected to ensure accurate scoring. Methods: This study compared traditional visual scoring of 32-channel polysomnography with forehead-only spectral scoring from an EEG patch worn concurrently. The PSG was visually scored by trained technicians and the forehead patch was scored spectrally. Because non-rapid eye movement (NREM) stage divisions in spectral scoring are not based on visual NREM stages, the agreements are not expected to be as high as other automated sleep scoring algorithms. Rather, they are a guide to understanding spectral stages as they relate to the more widely understood visual stages and to emphasize reasons for the differences. Results: The results showed that visual REM was highly recognized as spectral REM (89%). Visual wake was only scored as spectral Wake 47% of the time, partly because of excessive visual scoring of wake during Light and REM sleep. The majority of spectral Light (predominance of spindle power) was scored as N2 (74%), while less N2 was scored as Light (65%), mostly because of incorrect visual staging of Lo Deep sleep due to high-pass filtering. N3 was scored as both Hi Deep (13 Hz power, 42%) and Lo Deep (0-1 Hz power, 39%), constituting a total of 81% of N3. Discussion: The results show that spectral scoring better identifies clinically relevant physiology at a substantially lower cost and in a more reproducible fashion than visual scoring, supporting further work exploring its use in clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

EEGhidden markov modelmobile EEG devicepolysomnography (PSG)scoring algorithmsleepspectral scoring

Identifiers

PMID41424496
PMCPMC12713971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.