Pulse Wave Amplitude Drops during Sleep are Reliable Surrogate Markers of Changes in Cortical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During sleep, sudden drops in pulse wave amplitude (PWA) measured by pulse oximetry are commonly associated with simultaneous arousals and are thought to result from autonomic vasoconstriction. In the present study, we determine whether PWA drops were associated with changes in cortical activity as determined by EEG spectral analysis. METHODS: A 20% decrease in PWA was chosen as a minimum for a drop. A total of 1085 PWA drops from 10 consecutive sleep recordings were analyzed. EEG spectral analysis was performed over 5 consecutive epochs of 5 seconds: 2 before, 1 during, and 2 after the PWA drop. EEG spectral analysis was performed over delta, theta, alpha, sigma, and beta frequency bands. Within each frequency band, power density was compared across the five 5-sec epochs. Presence or absence of visually scored EEG arousals were adjudicated by an investigator blinded to the PWA signal and considered associated with PWA drop if concomitant. RESULTS: A significant increase in EEG power density in all EEG frequency bands was found during PWA drops (P<0.001) compared to before and after drop. Even in the absence of visually scored arousals, PWA drops were associated with a significant increase in EEG power density (P<0.001) in most frequency bands. CONCLUSIONS: Drops in PWA are associated with a significant increase in EEG power density, suggesting that these events can be used as a surrogate for changes in cortical activity during sleep. This approach may prove of value in scoring respiratory events on limited-channel (type III) portable monitors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".