MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Decision Fusion in Automated Sleep Apnea Classification Using Multple Polysomnography Sensors and Convolutional Neural Networks

2023· article· en· W4386920238 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Stewart, Caitlin Higginson, Julien Larivière-Chartier, Rébecca Robillard, James R. Green, Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreBruyèreUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysomnographyConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceSleep apneaArtificial intelligenceSensor fusionArtificial neural networkSleep (system call)ApneaPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a decision fusion approach using a multi-input Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for sleep apnea detection. Four sensor modalities were analyzed using a nasal pressure transducer (NP), oronasal thermal airflow (TH), electrocardiogram (ECG), and oximeter (SpO2), signals from polysomnography (PSG) data from 130 patients attending a sleep clinic. The best-performing model, utilizing all four sensors, achieved over 94% accuracy, precision, specificity, and over 92% on recall. Combining the less obtrusive ECG with any airflow sensor resulted in improvements compared to ECG or airflow sensors alone, with accuracy reaching over 94%. The results highlight the potential for decision fusion methods to improve sleep apnea detection by incorporating alternative sensors and leveraging the features automatically extracted by the CNN for each modality. This approach can optimize sensor usage for different monitoring environments, such as clinical settings or at- home monitoring, and help to find a balance between accuracy and unobtrusive monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→