Evaluation of the Vibe Actigraph in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To validate the Vibe actigraph in assessing sleep-wake patterns compared to polysomnography (PSG) in patients with COPD. METHODS: Nine stable COPD patients wore actigraphs while undergoing PSG. The correlation between total sleep time (TST), total sleep period (TSP), sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep efficiency was determined for corresponding measurements from the actigraph and PSG. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the actigraph, considering PSG the gold standard. Levels of agreement between the variables of PSG and the actigraph were estimated using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: = 0.83; p = 0.005). The median agreement of sleep and wake counts between PSG and the actigraph was 73% and the Cohen's Kappa value was 0.66. The medians of sensitivity and specificity of the actigraph for detecting sleep versus PSG were 84 and 66%, respectively. The median positive and negative predictive values of the actigraph were 74 and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, under controlled laboratory conditions, the Vibe actigraph in its default settings is a promising tool for the detection of sleep-wake parameters in a small number of ambulatory patients with COPD. Clinical Impact: The actigraph used in this pilot study suggests that these devices could provide clinically relevant information in COPD to better understand the relationship between sleep and health in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".