MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281852882 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac079.093

0095 Sleep Enhancement Technology in 2021: An Updated Survey of Apps

2022· article· en· W4281852882 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Stekl, Grace Klosterman, Guido Simonelli, Jacob Collen, Tracy Jill Doty

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndroid (operating system)App storeSleep (system call)Internet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Commercially available smartphone apps that claim to improve sleep quantity and/or quality represent an ever-evolving and fast-growing market. Although a large body of work has validated the performance of sleep tracking technologies, there is little information regarding potential sleep enhancement technologies. Our study systematically surveyed currently available commercial sleep enhancement smartphone apps to provide details to inform both providers and patients alike, in addition to the healthy consumer market. Methods We systematically searched the Google Play Store (Android) on 30 JUN 2021 and the App Store (Apple) on 30 JUN 2021 and 26 JUL 2021 in the US using the keyword “sleep.” The Android search was conducted via the Google Play Store website. The Apple search was conducted via third-party websites linked to the App Store due to restrictions on searching the App Store online. This survey was conducted using Google Chrome web browsers and is inclusive of all smartphone applications found. Results We identified 550 apps: 59.5% on Android (N=327) and 40.5% on Apple (N=223). Ninety-four percent of apps offered a free version. The majority of sleep apps were intended for use during wake (72.7% exclusively during wake; 25.1% during both wake and sleep), with only 2.2% intended to be used during sleep alone. Most apps purport to enhance rather than measure sleep (87.8% versus 0.5%). The vast majority of apps claim to enhance sleep via reductions in sleep latency (92.9%). Reduced sleep latency is primarily achieved using auditory stimuli (74.5%). Conclusion Most current sleep apps are designed to be used while awake, prior to sleep, and focus on the enhancement of sleep, rather than measurement, by targeting sleep latency. Given the evidence that supports sleep latency as an important target for sleep promoting interventions and the multitude of available sleep enhancement apps across both Android and Apple platforms, sleep apps could be considered a possible strategy for patients and consumers to improve their sleep, although validation of these apps is required. 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207