A New Approach for Detecting Sleep Apnea Using a Contactless Bed Sensor: Comparison Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> At present, there is an increased demand for accurate and personalized patient monitoring because of the various challenges facing health care systems. For instance, rising costs and lack of physicians are two serious problems affecting the patient’s care. Nonintrusive monitoring of vital signs is a potential solution to close current gaps in patient monitoring. As an example, bed-embedded ballistocardiogram (BCG) sensors can help physicians identify cardiac arrhythmia and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) nonintrusively without interfering with the patient’s everyday activities. Detecting OSA using BCG sensors is gaining popularity among researchers because of its simple installation and accessibility, that is, their nonwearable nature. In the field of nonintrusive vital sign monitoring, a microbend fiber optic sensor (MFOS), among other sensors, has proven to be suitable. Nevertheless, few studies have examined apnea detection. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aims to assess the capabilities of an MFOS for nonintrusive vital signs and sleep apnea detection during an in-lab sleep study. Data were collected from patients with sleep apnea in the sleep laboratory at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> In total, 10 participants underwent full polysomnography (PSG), and the MFOS was placed under the patient’s mattress for BCG data collection. The apneic event detection algorithm was evaluated against the manually scored events obtained from the PSG study on a minute-by-minute basis. Furthermore, normalized mean absolute error (NMAE), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were employed to evaluate the sensor capabilities for vital sign detection, comprising heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR). Vital signs were evaluated based on a 30-second time window, with an overlap of 15 seconds. In this study, electrocardiogram and thoracic effort signals were used as references to estimate the performance of the proposed vital sign detection algorithms. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> For the 10 patients recruited for the study, the proposed system achieved reasonable results compared with PSG for sleep apnea detection, such as an accuracy of 49.96% (SD 6.39), a sensitivity of 57.07% (SD 12.63), and a specificity of 45.26% (SD 9.51). In addition, the system achieved close results for HR and RR estimation, such as an NMAE of 5.42% (SD 0.57), an NRMSE of 6.54% (SD 0.56), and an MAPE of 5.41% (SD 0.58) for HR, whereas an NMAE of 11.42% (SD 2.62), an NRMSE of 13.85% (SD 2.78), and an MAPE of 11.60% (SD 2.84) for RR. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Overall, the recommended system produced reasonably good results for apneic event detection, considering the fact that we are using a single-channel BCG sensor. Conversely, satisfactory results were obtained for vital sign detection when compared with the PSG outcomes. These results provide preliminary support for the potential use of the MFOS for sleep apnea detection. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> <p/> </sec>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".