MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036783526 · doi:10.1109/10.966600

Computer-assisted sleep staging

2001· article· en· W2036783526 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisSegmentationNatural language processingIdentification (biology)Speech recognitionStage (stratigraphy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Operator (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the subjectivity in manual scoring of polysomnograms, a computer-assisted sleep staging method is presented in this paper. The method uses the principles of segmentation and self-organization (clustering) based on primitive sleep-related features to find the pseudonatural stages present in the record. Sample epochs of these natural stages are presented to the user, who can classify them according to the Rechtschaffen and Kales (RK) or any other standard. The method then learns from these samples to complete the classification. This step allows the active participation of the operator in order to customize the staging to his/her preferences. The method was developed and tested using 12 records of varying types (normal, abnormal, male, female, varying age groups). Results showed an overall concurrence of 80.6% with manual scoring of 20-s epochs according to RK standard. The greatest amount of errors occurred in the identification of the highly transitional Stage 1, 54% of which was misclassified into neighboring stages 2 or Wake.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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