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

Computer-assisted sleep staging

2001· article· en· W2036783526 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Agarwal, Jean Gotman

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations219
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207