ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2026
Validation of an artificial intelligence based single-channel photoplethysmography home sleep apnea test.
Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesTo validate EnsoSleep photoplethysmography (ePPG) software as a medical device (SaMD) for home sleep apnea testing compared to polysomnography.
methodsSimultaneous polysomnography (PSG) and photoplethysmography (PPG) signals were recorded for a single night in 225 individuals at risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). PSG was scored by three registered polysomnographic technologists and reviewed by a board-certified sleep specialist for fidelity. The ePPG studies were scored via a machine learning (ML) based scoring module. McNemar’s test, Deming regression, Bland-Altman plots, and sensitivity and specificity were used to compare ePPG to PSG. In addition to AHI, we also assessed total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, and sleep architecture.
resultsMcNemar’s test resulted in a p-value of 0.511, suggesting no systematic differences between the measurements. For ePPG, the mean difference in 3% AHI, compared to PSG, was 0.74 higher (95% CI: 0.43, 1.06) apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep. The OSA classification 3% AHI sensitivity was 90.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 95.4%), with a specificity of 72.3% (95% CI: 62.5%, 81.9%). The mean difference between PSG and ePPG was − 2.94 min (95% CI: -4.44, -1.62) for total sleep time, -9.9 min for sleep latency (95% CI: -10.80, -8.52), 9.42 min (95% CI: 8.34, 10.62) for wake after sleep onset, and − 0.6% (95% CI: -1.0%, -0.3%) for sleep efficiency.
conclusionsThis research demonstrated that ePPG SaMD is non-inferior to other home sleep apnea test (HSAT) options as an aid in the diagnosis of OSA.
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.