MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528511655 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00353

Automatic sleep spindle detection: benchmarking with fine temporal resolution using open science tools

2015· article· en· W1528511655 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian O’Reilly, Toré Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBenchmarkingComputer scienceTask (project management)Sleep spindleAutomationArtificial intelligenceDetectorData miningMachine learningInformation retrievalEngineeringEye movementSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep spindle properties index cognitive faculties such as memory consolidation and diseases such as major depression. For this reason, scoring sleep spindle properties in polysomnographic recordings has become an important activity in both research and clinical settings. The tediousness of this manual task has motivated efforts for its automation. Although some progress has been made, increasing the temporal accuracy of spindle scoring and improving the performance assessment methodology are two aspects needing more attention. In this paper, four open-access automated spindle detectors with fine temporal resolution are proposed and tested against expert scoring of two proprietary and two open-access databases. Results highlight several findings: (1) that expert scoring and polysomnographic databases are important confounders when comparing the performance of spindle detectors tested using different databases or scorings; (2) because spindles are sparse events, specificity estimates are potentially misleading for assessing automated detector performance; (3) reporting the performance of spindle detectors exclusively with sensitivity and specificity estimates, as is often seen in the literature, is insufficient; including sensitivity, precision and a more comprehensive statistic such as Matthew's correlation coefficient, F1-score, or Cohen's κ is necessary for adequate evaluation; (4) reporting statistics for some reasonable range of decision thresholds provides a much more complete and useful benchmarking; (5) performance differences between tested automated detectors were found to be similar to those between available expert scorings; (6) much more development is needed to effectively compare the performance of spindle detectors developed by different research teams. Finally, this work clarifies a long-standing but only seldomly posed question regarding whether expert scoring truly is a reliable gold standard for sleep spindle assessment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207