Montreal Archive of Sleep Studies: an open‐access resource for instrument benchmarking and exploratory research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual processing of sleep recordings is extremely time-consuming. Efforts to automate this process have shown promising results, but automatic systems are generally evaluated on private databases, not allowing accurate cross-validation with other systems. In lacking a common benchmark, the relative performances of different systems are not compared easily and advances are compromised. To address this fundamental methodological impediment to sleep study, we propose an open-access database of polysomnographic biosignals. To build this database, whole-night recordings from 200 participants [97 males (aged 42.9 ± 19.8 years) and 103 females (aged 38.3 ± 18.9 years); age range: 18-76 years] were pooled from eight different research protocols performed in three different hospital-based sleep laboratories. All recordings feature a sampling frequency of 256 Hz and an electroencephalography (EEG) montage of 4-20 channels plus standard electro-oculography (EOG), electromyography (EMG), electrocardiography (ECG) and respiratory signals. Access to the database can be obtained through the Montreal Archive of Sleep Studies (MASS) website (http://www.ceams-carsm.ca/en/MASS), and requires only affiliation with a research institution and prior approval by the applicant's local ethical review board. Providing the research community with access to this free and open sleep database is expected to facilitate the development and cross-validation of sleep analysis automation systems. It is also expected that such a shared resource will be a catalyst for cross-centre collaborations on difficult topics such as improving inter-rater agreement on sleep stage scoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.045 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".