A novel machine learning system for identifying sleep–wake states in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into sleep-wake behaviors relies on scoring sleep states, normally done by manual inspection of electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG) recordings. This is a highly time-consuming process prone to inter-rater variability. When studying relationships between sleep and motor function, analyzing arousal states under a four-state system of active wake (AW), quiet wake (QW), nonrapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep, and rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep provides greater precision in behavioral analysis but is a more complex model for classification than the traditional three-state identification (wake, NREM, and REM sleep) usually used in rodent models. Characteristic features between sleep-wake states provide potential for the use of machine learning to automate classification. Here, we devised SleepEns, which uses a novel ensemble architecture, the time-series ensemble. SleepEns achieved 90% accuracy to the source expert, which was statistically similar to the performance of two other human experts. Considering the capacity for classification disagreements that are still physiologically reasonable, SleepEns had an acceptable performance of 99% accuracy, as determined blindly by the source expert. Classifications given by SleepEns also maintained similar sleep-wake characteristics compared to expert classifications, some of which were essential for sleep-wake identification. Hence, our approach achieves results comparable to human ability in a fraction of the time. This new machine-learning ensemble will significantly impact the ability of sleep researcher to detect and study sleep-wake behaviors in mice and potentially in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".