Sleep Phenotypes in Chronic Pain Sufferers: Application of Machine Learning to a Large Database
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Chronic pain affects over 100 million American adults. There is a negative reciprocal relationship between chronic pain and sleep. As many as 80% of chronic pain patients report poor sleep quality and daytime fatigue. We have recently reported on the clinical benefits of fixed-site high-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (Quell, NeuroMetrix, Inc) in a chronic pain cohort. In addition to delivering therapeutic neurostimulation, this device collects health data including utilization, sleep measures, and activity metrics. The data is communicated to the patient through a smartphone app and aggregated in a cloud server. This digital health database presents a novel opportunity to study population characteristics in a large cohort of chronic pain sufferers. Objective: Our primary objective was to use machine learning techniques on a large database of sleep data in chronic pain sufferers to determine “sleep phenotypes.” The long-term goal of this research is to develop personalized therapeutic profiles that optimize sleep in chronic pain patients. Methods: De-identified data from device users consenting to have their data uploaded to a cloud server was analyzed. Individual users were characterized by their median sleep data. The analyzed sleep parameters included total sleep time (TST, hours), sleep efficiency (SE, %), periodic leg movement index (PLMI, events/hour), position change rate (PCR, events/hour), and time out of bed (OOB, minutes). K-means clustering was used to partition the data set into 3 mutually exclusive clusters based on TST, PLMI, PCR, and OOB. The optimal number of clusters was determined by the Silhouette value. Clustering was based on the correlation metric. One-way ANOVA was used to test whether the 3 cluster groups had a common mean for each sleep parameter. For parameters with differences in group means, t test was used to identify which pairs of means were different. Results: A total of 389 users with 5 or more nights of TST between 4 and 12 hours were included in the analysis. The sizes of the 3 clusters were 161 (41.4%), 147 (37.8%), and 81. None of the sleep parameters had the same mean among three clusters (P<.001). The 3 clusters represented 3 sleep phenotypes. The largest group (n=161) was a “good sleeper” phenotype characterized by a mean TST of 7.3, SE of 95.2, and low PLMI (2.1), PCR (1.3), and OOB (1.4). The second largest cluster was a “moderate sleeper” phenotype characterized by a mean TST of 7.4, SE of 92.4, low PLMI (3.9) and PCR (0.9), but relatively high OOB of 12.7. The third cluster was a “poor sleeper” phenotype characterized by TST of 6.6, SE of 91.2, and a high PLMI of 11.7. All pair-wise cluster means were different (P<.025), except for TST between good and moderate sleepers (P=.452). Conclusions: We identified 3 sleep phenotypes in a large cohort of chronic pain sufferers. The phenotypes reflected a progression from good to poor sleepers. The poorer sleepers were characterized by either a large amount of time out of bed during the night or a high rate of periodic leg movements.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».