Unobtrusive Monitoring of Sleep Cycles: A Technical Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polysomnography is the gold-standard method for measuring sleep but is inconvenient and limited to a laboratory or a hospital setting. As a result, the vast majority of patients do not receive a proper diagnosis. In an attempt to solve this issue, sleep experts are continually looking for unobtrusive and affordable alternatives that can provide longitudinal sleep tracking. Collecting longitudinal data on sleep can accelerate epidemiological studies exploring the effect of sleep on health and disease. These alternatives can be in the form of wearables (e.g., actigraphs) or nonwearable (e.g., under-mattress sleep trackers). To this end, this paper aims to review the several attempts made by researchers toward unobtrusive sleep monitoring, specifically sleep cycle. We have performed a literature search between 2016 and 2021 and the following databases were used for retrieving related articles to unobtrusive sleep cycle monitoring: IEEE, Google Scholar, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (JCSM), and PubMed Central (PMC). Following our survey, although existing devices showed promising results, most of the studies are restricted to a small sample of healthy individuals. Therefore, a broader scope of participants should be taken into consideration during future proposals and assessments of sleep cycle tracking systems. This is because factors such as gender, age, profession, and social class can largely affect sleep quality. Furthermore, a combination of sensors, e.g., smartwatches and under-mattress sleep trackers, are necessary to achieve reliable results. That is, wearables and nonwearable devices are complementary to each other, and so both are needed to boost the field of at-home sleep monitoring.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it