ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Wearable Sleep-Stage Classification: A Systematic Analysis of Signal Modalities, Representations, and Multimodal Fusion.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate sleep staging is essential for characterizing sleep architecture, yet conventional polysomnography limits scalable and long-term sleep monitoring. Wearable sensors offer a practical alternative, but their performance depends on the physiological modalities used and how the signals are represented. This study investigates the effects of signal modality, feature representation, and sleep-stage granularity on subject-independent wearable sleep staging. Using DREAMT, we compare handcrafted features, short-time Fourier transform (STFT) representations, and their fusion across three-, four-, and five-class tasks. Handcrafted features were modeled using a CNN-BiGRU framework, while STFT representations of BVP and accelerometry were learned using a deep time-frequency model. All DREAMT experiments were evaluated using five-fold subject-independent cross-validation, with Macro-F1 and Cohen's κ emphasized to account for class imbalance. We further evaluated optical pulse signal-based classification using the larger MESA Sleep cohort. STFT improved class-balanced performance over handcrafted features, while BVP was the strongest individual STFT modality, particularly for REM. For the three-, four-, and five-class tasks, handcrafted BVP + ACC achieved Macro-F1 scores of 0.5057, 0.4005, and 0.3366, respectively, compared with 0.6404, 0.5083, and 0.4376 using STFT. Hybrid fusion achieved Macro-F1 scores of 0.6476, 0.5108, and 0.4464, respectively. More complex fusion strategies did not improve Macro-F1 over simple concatenation. In MESA, increasing the cohort from 100 participants to the full eligible cohort improved pulse-based sleep-stage classification, although N1 and N3 remained comparatively difficult. Overall, the results show that effective signal representation and complementary physiological information are more important than simply increasing the number of modalities or model complexity.
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.