MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410503096 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf090.0679

0679 Enhancing Prediction of Sleepiness, Insomnia, and Cognitive Impairment Using Machine Learning on Polysomnography

2025· article· en· W4410503096 on OpenAlexaffabout
Archita Srivastava, Mohammadreza Hajipour, Andrew E. Beaudin, Patrick J. Hanly, Eric E. Smith, Frédéric Sériès, Rébecca Robillard, John Kimoff, Jill K. Raneri, Ghassan Hamarneh, Najib Ayas

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysomnographyInsomniaCognitive impairmentChronic insomniaPsychologyCognitionMedicineSleep (system call)AudiologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyPsychiatrySleep disorderComputer scienceElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder affecting approximately a billion people globally. Traditional diagnostic metrics from polysomnography (PSG) such as the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) are limited in predicting OSA-related impacts. This study aims to leverage machine learning (ML) methods to enhance PSG prediction of three outcomes: daytime sleepiness (defined as Epworth Sleepiness Scale >10), insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index >15) and cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment < 25) in patients with moderate to severe OSA. Methods This pilot study utilized a subset of Canadian Sleep and Circadian Network participants (patients with suspected OSA recruited from academic sleep centres). Advanced signal processing was used to derive 790 features from PSG European Data Format (edf) files including: respiratory events, heart rate variations, limb movements, and EEG based metrics from leads C3/C4 (e.g., sleep stages, spindle metrics, power frequencies, sleep depth, arousal intensity). 541 participants with moderate to severe OSA (AHI>15/hr) were included. Python 3.11.6 was used for analysis. For each outcome, dimensionality reduction was done using Lasso Regression, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). Binary classification models with Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Classification (SVC), Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Gaussian Naïve bayes, and XGBoost were then used (18 models tested). Model accuracy was assessed using 5-fold cross validation. Results Models that employed RFE for feature selection and LR for classification (based on 50-70 features depending on outcome) yielded the best performance. The average accuracy/F1 values across all target outcomes were 0.71/0.71 for sleepiness, 0.68/0.61 for insomnia, and 0.62/0.62 for cognitive impairment. However, accuracy of all the ML models surpassed the predictive accuracy of AHI alone (accuracy of 0.55, 0.60, 0.53 using logistic regression). Conclusion This preliminary study supports the concept of applying advanced signal processing and ML techniques to PSG to help predict OSA-related outcomes. Future research with larger sample sizes, more diverse patients, more refined ML methodologies, and better feature engineering should further improve accuracy of these models. Support (if any) CIHR, BC Lung Association

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207