MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044867568 · doi:10.2196/20921

Current Status and Future Challenges of Sleep Monitoring Systems: Systematic Review

2020· article· en· W3044867568 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware portabilitySleep (system call)Computer sciencePosition paperRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Sleep is essential for human health. Considerable effort has been put into academic and industrial research and in the development of wireless body area networks for sleep monitoring in terms of nonintrusiveness, portability, and autonomy. With the help of rapid advances in smart sensing and communication technologies, various sleep monitoring systems (hereafter, sleep monitoring systems) have been developed with advantages such as being low cost, accessible, discreet, contactless, unmanned, and suitable for long-term monitoring. Objective This paper aims to review current research in sleep monitoring to serve as a reference for researchers and to provide insights for future work. Specific selection criteria were chosen to include articles in which sleep monitoring systems or devices are covered. Methods This review investigates the use of various common sensors in the hardware implementation of current sleep monitoring systems as well as the types of parameters collected, their position in the body, the possible description of sleep phases, and the advantages and drawbacks. In addition, the data processing algorithms and software used in different studies on sleep monitoring systems and their results are presented. This review was not only limited to the study of laboratory research but also investigated the various popular commercial products available for sleep monitoring, presenting their characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. In particular, we categorized existing research on sleep monitoring systems based on how the sensor is used, including the number and type of sensors, and the preferred position in the body. In addition to focusing on a specific system, issues concerning sleep monitoring systems such as privacy, economic, and social impact are also included. Finally, we presented an original sleep monitoring system solution developed in our laboratory. Results By retrieving a large number of articles and abstracts, we found that hotspot techniques such as big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data mining have not been widely applied to the sleep monitoring research area. Accelerometers are the most commonly used sensor in sleep monitoring systems. Most commercial sleep monitoring products cannot provide performance evaluation based on gold standard polysomnography. Conclusions Combining hotspot techniques such as big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data mining with sleep monitoring may be a promising research approach and will attract more researchers in the future. Balancing user acceptance and monitoring performance is the biggest challenge in sleep monitoring system research.

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.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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