MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111480760 · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.033

Sleep modelled as a continuous and dynamic process predicts healthy ageing better than traditional sleep scoring

2020· article· en· W3111480760 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Cesari, Ambra Stefani, Thomas Mitterling, Birgit Frauscher, Suzana Veiga Schönwald, Birgit Högl

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsSleep (system call)Support vector machineCross-validationArtificial intelligencePolysomnographyRandom forestElectroencephalographySleep StagesComputer scienceMachine learningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In current clinical practice, sleep is manually scored in discrete stages of 30-s duration. We hypothesize that modelling sleep automatically as continuous and dynamic process predicts healthy ageing better than traditional scoring. Sleep electroencephalography of 15 young healthy subjects (aged ≤40 years) was used to train the modelling method. Each 3-s sleep mini-epoch was modelled as a probabilistic combination of wakefulness, light and deep sleep. For 79 healthy sleepers (aged 20–77 years), 15 sleep features were derived from manual traditional scoring (manual features), 7 from the automatic modelling (automatic features) and 24 from a combination of automatic modelling with traditional scoring (combined features). Age was predicted with seven multiple linear regression models with i) manual, ii) automatic, iii) combined, iv) manual + automatic, v) manual + combined, vi) automatic + combined, and vii) manual + automatic + combined sleep features. Using the same seven sleep feature groups, two support vector machine and one random forest classifiers were used to discriminate younger (aged <47 years) from older subjects with fivefold cross-validation. Adjusted coefficients of determination (adj-R2) and average validation accuracy (ACC) were used to compare the linear models and the classifiers. The linear model and the classifiers using only manual features achieved the lowest values of adjusted coefficient of determination and classification validation accuracy (adj-R2 = 0.295, ACC = 63.00% ± 16.22%) compared to the ones using automatic (adj-R2 = 0.354, ACC = 65.83% ± 9.39%), combined (adj-R2 = 0.321, ACC = 63.42% ± 8.78%), manual + automatic (adj-R2 = 0.416, ACC = 67.00% ± 8.60%), manual + combined (adj-R2 = 0.355, ACC = 72.17% ± 12.90%), automatic + combined (adj-R2 = 0.448, ACC = 65.92% ± 7.97%), and manual + automatic + combined sleep features (adj-R2 = 0.464, ACC = 70.92% ± 10.33%). Continuous and dynamic sleep modelling captures healthy ageing better than traditional sleep scoring.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSleep MedicineSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207