Wearable technologies for developing sleep and circadian biomarkers: a summary of workshop discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The "International Biomarkers Workshop on Wearables in Sleep and Circadian Science" was held at the 2018 SLEEP Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. The workshop brought together experts in consumer sleep technologies and medical devices, sleep and circadian physiology, clinical translational research, and clinical practice. The goals of the workshop were: (1) characterize the term "wearable" for use in sleep and circadian science and identify relevant sleep and circadian metrics for wearables to measure; (2) assess the current use of wearables in sleep and circadian science; (3) identify current barriers for applying wearables to sleep and circadian science; and (4) identify goals and opportunities for wearables to advance sleep and circadian science. For the purposes of biomarker development in the sleep and circadian fields, the workshop included the terms "wearables," "nearables," and "ingestibles." Given the state of the current science and technology, the limited validation of wearable devices against gold standard measurements is the primary factor limiting large-scale use of wearable technologies for sleep and circadian research. As such, the workshop committee proposed a set of best practices for validation studies and guidelines regarding how to choose a wearable device for research and clinical use. To complement validation studies, the workshop committee recommends the development of a public data repository for wearable data. Finally, sleep and circadian scientists must actively engage in the development and use of wearable devices to maintain the rigor of scientific findings and public health messages based on wearable technology.
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 | 0.069 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".