U-Sleep’s resilience to AASM guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AASM guidelines are the result of decades of efforts aiming at standardizing sleep scoring procedure, with the final goal of sharing a worldwide common methodology. The guidelines cover several aspects from the technical/digital specifications, e.g., recommended EEG derivations, to detailed sleep scoring rules accordingly to age. Automated sleep scoring systems have always largely exploited the standards as fundamental guidelines. In this context, deep learning has demonstrated better performance compared to classical machine learning. Our present work shows that a deep learning-based sleep scoring algorithm may not need to fully exploit the clinical knowledge or to strictly adhere to the AASM guidelines. Specifically, we demonstrate that U-Sleep, a state-of-the-art sleep scoring algorithm, can be strong enough to solve the scoring task even using clinically non-recommended or non-conventional derivations, and with no need to exploit information about the chronological age of the subjects. We finally strengthen a well-known finding that using data from multiple data centers always results in a better performing model compared with training on a single cohort. Indeed, we show that this latter statement is still valid even by increasing the size and the heterogeneity of the single data cohort. In all our experiments we used 28528 polysomnography studies from 13 different clinical studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".