An approach for determining the reliability of manual and digital scoring of sleep stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Inter-scorer variability in sleep staging is largely due to equivocal epochs that contain features of more than one stage. We propose an approach that recognizes the existence of equivocal epochs and evaluates scorers accordingly. METHODS: Epoch-by-epoch staging was performed on 70 polysomnograms by six qualified technologists and by a digital system (Michele Sleep Scoring [MSS]). Probability that epochs assigned the same stage by only two of the six technologists (minority score) resulted from random occurrence of two errors was calculated and found to be <5%, thereby indicating that the stage assigned is an acceptable variant for the epoch. Acceptable stages were identified in each epoch as stages assigned by at least two technologists. Percent agreement between each technologist and the other five technologists, acting as judges, was determined. Agreement was considered to exist if the stage assigned by the tested scorer was one of the acceptable stages for the epoch. Stage assigned by MSS was likewise considered in agreement if included in the acceptable stages made by the technologists. RESULTS: Agreement of technologists tested against five qualified judges increased from 80.8% (range 70.5%-86.4% among technologists) when using the majority rule, to 96.1 (89.8%-98.5%) by the proposed approach. Agreement between unedited MSS and same judges was 90.0% and increased to 92.1% after brief editing. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for equivocal epochs provides a more accurate estimate of a scorer's (human or digital) competence in scoring sleep stages and reduces inter-scorer disagreements. The proposed approach can be implemented in sleep-scoring training and accreditation programs.
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 | 0.037 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".