SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Accuracy of Machine Learning Algorithms Based on Electroencephalogram in Sleep Apnea Detection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sleep apnea (SA) is a serious sleep disorder, and its diagnostic gold standard, polysomnography, is costly and time-consuming. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals, due to their direct correlation with neural activity and ease of extraction, represent a promising tool. Despite increasing research on machine learning (ML) and deep learning for EEG-based SA detection, model performance has not been consistently evaluated. Objective: This systematic review evaluated the accuracy of ML in detecting SA from EEG data and provided an evidence base for further clinical application and future research. Methods: Following the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 expanded checklists, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to April 2026. Studies evaluating the value of ML algorithms for detecting SA based only on EEG data were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Artificial Intelligence tools were used to assess the risk of bias in each study. Statistical analysis was performed using the mada and metafor packages in R (version 4.6.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) and the Meta-DiSc (version 1.4; Hospital Ramón y Cajal) software. We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 27 retrospective studies were included. Segment-level analyses showed high diagnostic performance, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94; 95% prediction interval 0.43-0.99) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.95; 95% prediction interval 0.46-0.99). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.99). Meta-regression identified EEG channel configuration, region, and validation strategy as significant sources of heterogeneity (P=.004, P=.003, and P=.046, respectively). Multichannel EEG, deep learning approaches, and hold-out validation strategies generally demonstrated better diagnostic performance. Only 2 studies evaluated patient-level diagnostic performance, which was summarized qualitatively. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis specifically focused on the diagnostic accuracy of EEG-based ML models in the detection of SA. This meta-analysis indicates that ML models based on EEG demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy in detecting SA at the segment level and show promise as tools for SA screening and clinical decision support. However, most current studies are retrospective segment-level analyses, which may overestimate the practical value of this technology in real-world clinical settings. To reliably integrate EEG-based ML models into clinical diagnostic workflows, further prospective studies incorporating full-night monitoring and patient-level validation are needed.
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.