Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Manual scoring of polysomnograms (PSG) is labor intensive and has considerable variance between scorers. Automation of scoring could reduce cost and improve reproducibility. The purpose of this study was to compare a new automated scoring system (YST-Limited, Winnipeg, Canada) with computer-assisted manual scoring. DESIGN: Technical assessment. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventy PSG files were selected at University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and distributed to five US academic sleep centers. Two blinded technologists from each center scored each file. Automatic scoring was performed at Penn by a YST Limited technician using a laptop containing the software. Variables examined were sleep stages, arousals, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) using three methods of identifying hypopneas. Automatic scores were not edited and were compared to the average scores of the 10 technologists. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained for the 70 pairs and compared to across-sites ICCs for manually scored results. ICCs for automatic versus manual scoring were > 0.8 for total sleep time, stage N2, and nonrapid eye movement arousals and > 0.9 for AHI scored by primary and secondary American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. ICCs for other variables were not as high but were comparable to the across-site ICCs for manually scored results. CONCLUSION: The automatic system yielded results that were similar to those obtained by experienced technologists. Very good ICCs were obtained for many primary PSG outcome measures. This automated scoring software, particularly if supplemented with manual editing, may increase laboratory efficiency and standardize PSG scoring results within and across sleep centers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".