MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914296703 · doi:10.22489/cinc.2018.232

Automated Detection of Sleep Arousals From Polysomnography Data Using a Dense Convolutional Neural Network

2018· article· en· W2914296703 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Howe-Patterson, Bahareh Pourbabaee, Frédéric Bénard

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsPerkinElmer Biosignal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysomnographyConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceSleep (system call)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkSleep StagesElectroencephalographyNeurosciencePsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a dense recurrent convolutional neural network (DRCNN) was constructed to detect sleep arousals using available Polysomnography (PSG) measurement channels provided in the 2018 Physionet challenge database. Our model structure is composed of multiple dense convolutional units (DCU) followed by a bidirectional long-short term memory (LSTM) layer followed by a softmax output layer. The sleep events including sleep stages, arousal regions and multiple types of apnea-hypopnea/normal are manually annotated in 2018 Physionet challenge database which enable us to train our proposed network using a multi-task learning mechanism. Three binary cross-entropy loss functions corresponding to sleep/wake, arousal presence/absence and apnea/hypopnea presence/absence detections are summed up to generate our overall network loss function that is optimized using the Adam method. Our model performance was evaluated using two metrics: the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To measure our model generalization, 4-fold cross-validation was also performed. For training, full night recording data was applied to our model. Finally, our proposed algorithm achieves the first place in the official stage of the Physionet challenge with AUPRC of 0.54 on the blind testing dataset.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in cardiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207