Detection of Rapid-Eye Movements in Sleep Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key features of rapid-eye movement (REM) sleep is the presence of bursts of REMs. Sleep studies routinely use REMs to classify sleep stages. Moreover, REM count or density has been used in studies involving learning and various psychiatric disorders. Most of these studies have been based on the visual identification of REMs, which is generally a very time-consuming task. This and the varying definitions of REMs across scorers have warranted the development of automatic REM detection methodologies. In this paper, we present a new detection scheme that combines many of the intrinsic properties of REMs and requires minimal parameter adjustments. In the proposed method, a single parameter can be used to control the REM detection sensitivity and specificity tradeoff. Manually scored training data are used to develop the method. We assess the performance of the method against manual scoring of individual REM events and present validation results using a separate data set. The ability of the method to discriminate fast horizontal ocular movement in REM sleep from other types of events is highlighted. A key advantage of the presented method is the minimal a priori information requirement. The results of training data (recordings from five subjects) show an overall sensitivity of 78.8% and specificity of 81.6%. The performance on the testing data (recording from five subjects different from the training data) showed overall sensitivity of 67.2% and specificity of 77.5%.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".