P108 Accuracy of auto-scored sleep for characterization of neurodegenerative disorder risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study investigated the impact of visual editing of sleep recordings for use in predicting neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) risk. Methods All participants underwent in-home Sleep Profiler studies. Forty-four were diagnosed with mild cognitive impartment (MCI = 40) or Alzheimer’s disease (AD = 4)(MCI/AD: 55% women, 72.6+/-8.6 years), 26 with REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD: women = 27%, age = 67+/-9.8), and 29 were controls (NC: women = 69%, age = 63+/-11.5). A 4-class machine learning algorithm used age plus eight sleep biomarkers to assign NDD risk probabilities. Records with CG-assigned probabilities >70% were labeled Probably-Normal, and from 45-70% Likely-Normal. Similar thresholds were used to assign Likely- or Probably-Abnormal. NDD risk characterizations were generated based on auto-scoring (“auto”), and again after the recordings were visually edited for accuracy (“edited”). Results Comparing the auto- vs. edited-NDD classifications in the MCI/AD group, the same NDD risk classifications were observed in 91% (39/43), with 2 cases shifting from Likely-Normal to Probably-Normal, one shifted from Likely-AD to Likely-Normal with AD Indications, and one changed from Probably-AD to Likely-AD. The same NDD risk classifications were observed in 81% (21/26) of the RBD cases, 3 shifted from Probably-Abnormal to Likely-Abnormal, one shifted from Likely-Normal to Probably-Normal, and one changed from Likely-Abnormal to Likely-Normal. The same NDD risk classifications were observed in 86% of the NC group, with 4 cases shifting from Likely-Normal to Probably-Normal. Conclusions These findings suggest that the likelihood of a gross misclassification of NDD risk resulting from auto-detected sleep biomarkers is relatively low with inconsistencies directed toward slightly increased NDD risk classifications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".