Comparison of Sleep Features Across Smartphone Sensors, Actigraphy, and Diaries Among Young Adults: Longitudinal Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Poor sleep health is pervasive and contributes to long-lasting physical and psychological problems. As traditional sleep measurement can be burdensome, testing scalable and accessible sleep measurements is important. Objective: The aim of this study was to test whether sleep features obtained through a smartphone app are comparable to other modes of sleep measurement (ie, daily diary and wearable actigraphy). Methods: Healthy college students (n=29, 18-24 years old) with no prior diagnosis of a sleep disorder consented to downloading a smartphone app, the Effortless Assessment Research System (EARS) (Center for Digital Mental Health, University of Oregon; Ksana Health). For 1 week, the EARS app collected data continuously using the phone's accelerometer, gyroscope, and exposure to light. Each morning, participants received a notification via EARS to complete a sleep diary, which asked participants what time they got into bed, fell asleep, woke up, and got out of bed. A random subset (n=13) of participants also consented to wear an ActiGraph wristwatch. All analyses examined bedtime (ie, time going to bed), risetime (ie, wake-up time), and time-in-bed (ie, duration between time-in-bed and out-of-bed) as 3 measures of interest. For all analyses, diary data were considered the reference measurement, and analyses were repeated with ActiGraph as the reference measurement. Results: On average, EARS showed a high mean true positive rate (86.6%) and low mean false positive rate (4%) based on diary-reported bedtime and risetime. Supplementary analyses comparing EARS to ActiGraph data showed a similar true positive rate (83.7%) and slightly higher false positive rate (8.5%). Although there were no significant differences in mean bedtime, risetime, and time-in-bed among sources (P≥.07), there was some misalignment. Compared to the diaries, EARS estimated bedtime to be later by an average of 20 minutes, risetime to be earlier by an average of 21.83 minutes, and time-in-bed to be shorter by an average of 41.82 minutes. Relative to ActiGraph estimates, EARS estimated bedtime to be earlier by an average of 21.87 minutes, but estimated risetime to be later by 2.5 minutes, and time-in-bed to be longer by 24.4 minutes. Day-to-day correlations showed that bedtimes, risetimes, and time-in-bed were positively correlated between diary and EARS (0.29≤r≤0.52, P≤.002). Similarly, day-to-day bedtimes and time-in-bed were positively correlated between ActiGraph and EARS (0.38≤r≤0.55, P≤.01), and while correlated in the expected direction, risetimes were not significantly associated between ActiGraph and EARS (r=0.29, P=.07). Conclusions: Smartphone-based sleep sensors show acceptable alignment with more established methods and may provide a feasible alternative to measuring daily sleep patterns in a scalable way. Future studies will require larger, diverse samples to corroborate findings of concordance among EARS, diary, and actigraphy data in other populations.
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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 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 ».