Computer-assisted method for quantifying sleep eye movements that reflects medication effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant amount of data is not attended to clinically in routine sleep studies. Measures of sleep physiology not obvious to the human eye may provide important clues to disease states, and responses to therapy. For example, it has been noted that eye movements change significantly in patients exposed to antidepressant medications. This paper describes how eye movements were different in depressed patients who used antidepressant medications, compared to those who did not. Groups 1 and 2 included five patients each who used citalopram and venlafaxine respectively compared to five patients not taking any antidepressants. Autoregressive (AR) coefficients of eye movements recorded during sleep have been derived. These coefficients represent the shape of the sleep eye movements of all three groups and were classified using discriminant analysis. In this paper, an improved methodology has been used for this classification. This method includes eye movement detection with improved eye movement detection software and evaluation of AR coefficients with fixed segments. The AIC method has been used for determination of an appropriate model order of 27. AR coefficients are then derived on the basis of this optimized value and are then classified with a linear discriminant function. The overall average of the regular method accuracies were 76.4%, and 78.7% for groups 1 and 2 respectively. The overall average of the leave-one-out method accuracies were 75.5% and 77.5% for Groups 1 and 2. The results demonstrate that eye movements can be quantified and characterized with this approach. This methodology will allow the development of new metrics that may assist in disease classification, and response to treatment in a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".