MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-Time REM Sleep Stage Classification Using Deep Neural Networks and Multiple Task Learning

2025· article· W7126045004 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Chowdhury, Danny Silver, Sazia Mahfuz, Kenneth Leslie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Convolutional neural networkSleep (system call)Deep learningGround truthSleep StagesArtificial neural networkSlow-wave sleep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep plays a critical role in memory consolidation, emotional regulation, and cognitive functioning. The accurate detection of REM sleep is essential to the diagnosis of sleep disorders and assessing the quality of sleep. We provide a comparative study of convolutional neural networks for classifying REM sleep stages in real-time using data from a commercially available smartwatch. Heart rate and acceleration measures are collected and consolidated into 2minute intervals for input to the model. Ground truth data has been gathered through Apple's HealthKit dataset. We statistically prove that Apple's HealthKit data is sufficiently close to the industry standard Cerebra Sleep Study System and is more affordable. We employ 5-fold cross-validation to evaluate neural network architectures tailored to individual users, aiming to enhance model performance. By integrating advanced features and incorporating Multi-Task Learning (MTL) techniques, we achieve significant improvements in real-time REM sleep detection, surpassing the benchmarks we established before this experiment. Our work focuses on creating personalized models for each user, which is why we initially work with a small dataset to test how the model performs and detect different sleep stages in real time. Our results indicate that the single-layer convolutional model with batch normalization and a kernel size of 3, as well as the single-layer convolutional model with max-pooling and a kernel size of 9, have superior performance. The best-performing model, developed for a single subject, achieved an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.901, a correlation of 0.697, REM accuracy of 0.853, an F1 score of 0.708, a True Positive Rate (TPR) of 0.788, and True Negative Rate (TNR) of 0.881 on the test dataset.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→