Clustering Insomnia Patterns by Data From Wearable Devices: Algorithm Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As societies become more complex, larger populations suffer from insomnia. In 2014, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared that sleep disorders should be dealt with as a public health epidemic. However, it is hard to provide adequate treatment for each insomnia sufferer, since various behavioral characteristics influence symptoms of insomnia collectively. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a neural-net based unsupervised user clustering method towards insomnia sufferers in order to clarify the unique traits for each derived groups. Unlike the current diagnosis of insomnia that requires qualitative analysis from interview results, the classification of individuals with insomnia by using various information modalities from smart bands and neural-nets can provide better insight into insomnia treatments. METHODS: This study, as part of the precision psychiatry initiative, is based on a smart band experiment conducted over 6 weeks on individuals with insomnia. During the experiment period, a total of 42 participants (19 male; average age 22.00 [SD 2.79]) from a large university wore smart bands 24/7, and 3 modalities were collected and examined: sleep patterns, daily activities, and personal demographics. We considered the consecutive daily information as a form of images, learned the latent variables of the images via a convolutional autoencoder (CAE), and clustered and labeled the input images based on the derived features. We then converted consecutive daily information into a sequence of the labels for each subject and finally clustered the people with insomnia based on their predominant labels. RESULTS: =3.51, P=.02 for stairs). Analyzing the consecutive data through a CAE and clustering could reveal intricate connections between insomnia and various everyday activity markers. CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that unsupervised learning allows health practitioners to devise precise and tailored interventions at the level of data-guided user clusters (ie, precision psychiatry), which could be a novel solution to treating insomnia and other mental disorders.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".