MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157606639 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab072.269

270 Sleep Enhancement Technology: A Survey of Devices

2021· article· en· W3157606639 on OpenAlexaff
Grace Klosterman, Emily Stekl, Guido Simonelli, Jacob Collen, Tracy Jill Doty

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Obstructive sleep apneaComputer scienceMedicineIntervention (counseling)Sleep apneaLatency (audio)PsychologyPsychiatryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Innovations in consumer sleep technologies have risen exponentially and providers struggle to keep up with patient expectations in this arena. Although there is high quality data on the validity on commercial sleep monitoring devices, there has been a rise in devices for the explicit purpose of sleep enhancement. We sought to identify existing consumer sleep devices that claim to enhance sleep, provide a comprehensive review of the main characteristics of these devices, and look into the types of evidence the developers offered to support their claims. Methods Using a scoping review framework we identified and mapped out the main characteristics of sleep enhancement devices in the consumer market. We systematically used a common search engine and the FDA database using various combinations of sleep-related search terms, such as “sleep enhancement device”. Through an iterative process, we identified and categorized devices based on the intervention target. Devices that were exclusively for clinical use and required a prescription, such as for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea or diagnosed insomnia, were excluded. Results We identified 34 sleep enhancement devices, all 34 were found via web search and one was also found in the FDA Database. We defined the following overlapping categories: reduce sleep latency (94.1%), increase restorative sleep (17.6%), and/or “other” (32.4%). About half of the devices use sound (44.1%), 26.5% use visual stimuli, and 11.8% use vibration. Additionally, roughly a third of all devices claim to entrain brain signals associated with sleep. Half of devices found operate near the bed without being in contact with the consumer, 44.1% are worn on the body, and the remaining 5.9% operate in bed, near the consumer. Conclusion For the most part, commercial sleep enhancement devices target sleep latency or claim to increase the restorative power of sleep. These devices generally use auditory, visual, and vibratory stimuli, and half are worn on the body. Lack of evidence supporting whether these devices actually improve sleep questions the utility of such devices and demonstrates the need for validation standards for consumer sleep enhancement devices. Support (if any) Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program (MOMRP)

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207