ArticleNature and science of sleep2026
Multicenter Validation of an AI-Based Snoring Model vs. Wearables for Diagnosing Sleep Apnea.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) has high prevalence and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular comorbidities. Polysomnography (PSG) is the diagnostic gold standard but limited by complexity, cost, and accessibility; smart wearables are convenient but less accurate. This study validated an AI-based snoring-sound model and compared its diagnostic performance with a wearable, using PSG as reference. Methods: Adults with suspected SAHS (n = 134) were included and underwent overnight PSG, with simultaneous snoring sound and wearable signal recording. The snoring algorithm used short-time Fourier transform (STFT) spectrograms and a multiscale encoder-attention-decoder neural network for classification. Model performance was assessed using correlation analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) values were computed for both models. Results: Disease severity was associated with variation in BMI (p < 0.001) and decreasing oxygen saturation (p < 0.001). The snoring model showed stronger correlation and higher agreement with PSG-derived AHI (r = 0.79, ICC = 0.753) than the wearable (r = 0.68). Although the snoring model yielded consistently higher AUCs, particularly in mild SAHS (AUC = 0.83 vs. 0.72, p = 0.07), the differences between methods were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Both models achieved excellent discriminative performance in severe SAHS (AUC ≥ 0.90). Conclusion: The AI-driven snoring-sound model demonstrated comparable overall performance and numerically better performance in certain settings, particularly in identifying mild SAHS.
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.