Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42603228›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2026

Meta-Analysis of Face-Validity Indicators in Automatically Detected Dog Sleep Spindles.

Ivaylo Borislavov Iotchev, Anna Kis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ivaylo Borislavov IotchevHUNREN Research Center for Natural Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Budapest, 1117, 0.022, Hungary. ivaylo.iotchev@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6171-6078
Anna KisHUNREN Research Center for Natural Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Budapest, 1117, 0.022, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual inspection as the golden standard for sleep spindle detection has received mixed support and may not be equally viable across species and experimental conditions. Here we propose a novel intermediate strategy for approximating the quality of a detector and subject our own algorithm for spindle detection in dogs to the procedure. Automatic detections across the full range of our data (excluding only data sets with high subject overlap) were analyzed for their compliance with three face validity criteria, originally discovered by expert scorers in human EEG. These criteria are the shortness of the events (mostly below 2 s, maximum 6), the distribution of faster (> 13 Hz) spindles along the midline (higher in central and posterior derivations) and an association between amplitude and negative chirp (positive for sleep spindles and mostly unrelated for other oscillations). All three criteria were observed in the majority of data sets and sampling events (subsets of data defined by condition and/or recording channel). Replication was more consistent for data sets than for sampling events, but combined probabilities (Fisher's method) always favoured face validity compliance. Our results indicate that automatic detections in the dog, which were shown in the past to display similar to humans associations with age and cognition, also share face validity criteria with human spindles. This strengthens the dog as a model in sleep spindle research and offers additional arguments for the quality of our detection method.

Indexed as

BrainElectroencephalographySleepSleep StagesAlgorithmsAnimalsDogsHumansReproducibility of ResultsAutomatic detectionDogsEEGMethod validationPolysomnographySleep spindlesVisual inspection

Identifiers

PMID42603228
PMCPMC13477484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.