Using cross-recurrence quantification analysis to compute similarity measures for time series of unequal length with applications to sleep stage analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing time series of unequal length requires data processing procedures that may introduce biases. This article describes, validates, and applies Cross-Recurrence Quantification Analysis (CRQA) to detect and quantify correlation and coupling among time series of unequal length without prior data processing. We illustrate and validate this application using continuous and discrete data from a model system (study 1). Then we use the method to re-analyze the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS), a rare large dataset comprising detailed physiological sleep measurements acquired by in-home polysomnography. We investigate whether recurrence patterns of ultradian NREM/REM sleep cycles (USC) predict mortality (study 2). CRQA exhibits better performance compared with traditional approaches that require trimming, stretching or compression to bring two time series to the same length. Application to the SHHS indicates that recurrence patterns linked to stability of USCs are associated with all-cause mortality even after controlling for other sleep parameters, health, and sociodemographics. We suggest that CRQA is a useful tool for analyzing categorical time series, where the underlying structure of the data is unlikely to result in matching data points-such as ultradian sleep cycles.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".