MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791102147 · doi:10.1111/jsr.12667

Development and validation of an algorithm for the study of sleep using a biometric shirt in young healthy adults

2018· article· en· W2791102147 on OpenAlexafffund
Joëlle Pion‐Massicotte, Roger Godbout, P. Savard, Jean‐François Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalHôpital Rivière-des-PrairiesCarré Technologies (Canada)
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiometricsSleep (system call)PsychologyComputer scienceAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portable polysomnography is often too complex and encumbering for recording sleep at home. We recorded sleep using a biometric shirt (electrocardiogram sensors, respiratory inductance plethysmography bands and an accelerometer) in 21 healthy young adults recorded in a sleep laboratory for two consecutive nights, together with standard polysomnography. Polysomnographic recordings were scored using standard methods. An algorithm was developed to classify the biometric shirt recordings into rapid eye movement sleep, non-rapid eye movement sleep and wake. The algorithm was based on breathing rate and heart rate variability, body movement, and included a correction for sleep onset and offset. The overall mean percentage of agreement between the two sets of recordings was 77.4%; when non-rapid eye movement and rapid eye movement sleep epochs were grouped together, it increased to 90.8%. The overall kappa coefficient was 0.53. Five of the seven sleep variables were significantly correlated. The findings of this pilot study indicate that this simple portable system could be used to estimate the general sleep pattern of young healthy adults.

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 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)0.006
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sleep ResearchSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207