MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310462531 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac286

Dementia detection from brain activity during sleep

2022· article· en· W4310462531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elissa M. Ye, Haoqi Sun, Parimala Velpula Krishnamurthy, Noor Adra, Wolfgang Ganglberger, Robert J. Thomas, Alice Lam, M. Brandon Westover

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAmerican Academy of Sleep Medicine FoundationNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDementiaSleep (system call)PsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceAudiologyPsychiatryInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Dementia is a growing cause of disability and loss of independence in the elderly, yet remains largely underdiagnosed. Early detection and classification of dementia can help close this diagnostic gap and improve management of disease progression. Altered oscillations in brain activity during sleep are an early feature of neurodegenerative diseases and be used to identify those on the verge of cognitive decline. METHODS: Our observational cross-sectional study used a clinical dataset of 10 784 polysomnography from 8044 participants. Sleep macro- and micro-structural features were extracted from the electroencephalogram (EEG). Microstructural features were engineered from spectral band powers, EEG coherence, spindle, and slow oscillations. Participants were classified as dementia (DEM), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or cognitively normal (CN) based on clinical diagnosis, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Exam scores, clinical dementia rating, and prescribed medications. We trained logistic regression, support vector machine, and random forest models to classify patients into DEM, MCI, and CN groups. RESULTS: For discriminating DEM versus CN, the best model achieved an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.78 and area under precision-recall curve (AUPRC) of 0.22. For discriminating MCI versus CN, the best model achieved an AUROC of 0.73 and AUPRC of 0.18. For discriminating DEM or MCI versus CN, the best model achieved an AUROC of 0.76 and AUPRC of 0.32. CONCLUSIONS: Our dementia classification algorithms show promise for incorporating dementia screening techniques using routine sleep EEG. The findings strengthen the concept of sleep as a window into neurodegenerative diseases.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207