Evaluating the performance of open-source and proprietary processing of actigraphy sleep estimation in children with suspected sleep disorders: A comparison with polysomnography.

IF 5.6 2区医学 Q1 Medicine

Sleep Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1093/sleep/zsae267

Aliye B Cepni, Sarah Burkart, Xuanxuan Zhu, James White, Olivia Finnegan, Srihari Nelakuditi, Michael Beets, David Brown Iii, Russell Pate, Gregory Welk, Massimiliano de Zambotti, Rahul Ghosal, Yuan Wang, Bridget Armstrong, Elizabeth Adams, Vincent van Hees, R Glenn Weaver

{"title":"Evaluating the performance of open-source and proprietary processing of actigraphy sleep estimation in children with suspected sleep disorders: A comparison with polysomnography.","authors":"Aliye B Cepni, Sarah Burkart, Xuanxuan Zhu, James White, Olivia Finnegan, Srihari Nelakuditi, Michael Beets, David Brown Iii, Russell Pate, Gregory Welk, Massimiliano de Zambotti, Rahul Ghosal, Yuan Wang, Bridget Armstrong, Elizabeth Adams, Vincent van Hees, R Glenn Weaver","doi":"10.1093/sleep/zsae267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Study objectives: Evaluate the performance of actigraphy-based open-source and proprietary sleep algorithms compared to polysomnography in children with suspected sleep disorders.Methods: In a sleep clinic, 110 children (5-12 years, 54% female, 50% Black, 82% with sleep disorders) wore wrist-placed ActiGraph GT9X during overnight polysomnography. Actigraphy data were scored as sleep or wake using open-source GGIR and proprietary ActiLife software. Discrepancy and epoch-by-epoch analyses were conducted to assess agreement between algorithms and polysomnography, along with equivalence testing.Results: The open-source vanHees2015 algorithm showed good accuracy (79.5% ± 12.0%), sensitivity (81.1% ± 13.5%), and specificity (66.0% ± 23.8%) for sleep detection but was outperformed by the proprietary ActiLife algorithms. The magnitude and trend of bias for total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset were similar between algorithms. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were statistically equivalent for the Cole-Kripke (Actilife) and vanHees2015 algorithms compared to the Sadeh (Actilife) algorithm. The Cole-Kripke (ActiLife) demonstrated higher sensitivity (90.5%) to detect sleep but lower specificity (61.2%) than Cole-Kripke (GGIR) (sensitivity: 62.7%, specificity: 79.9%). Sadeh and Cole-Kripke estimated sleep outcomes were not statistically equivalent between implementations in ActiLife and GGIR.Conclusions: The open-source vanHees2015 algorithm performed well but slightly worse than the proprietary ActiLife algorithms in children. The open-source nature vanHees2015 makes it ideal for clinical pediatric use. Implementation of the Sadeh and Cole-Kripke algorithms in the proprietary ActiLife and open-source GGIR software yield different sleep estimates, so comparisons between studies using these different implementations should be avoided.","PeriodicalId":22018,"journal":{"name":"Sleep","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sleep","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsae267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objectives: Evaluate the performance of actigraphy-based open-source and proprietary sleep algorithms compared to polysomnography in children with suspected sleep disorders.

Methods: In a sleep clinic, 110 children (5-12 years, 54% female, 50% Black, 82% with sleep disorders) wore wrist-placed ActiGraph GT9X during overnight polysomnography. Actigraphy data were scored as sleep or wake using open-source GGIR and proprietary ActiLife software. Discrepancy and epoch-by-epoch analyses were conducted to assess agreement between algorithms and polysomnography, along with equivalence testing.

Results: The open-source vanHees2015 algorithm showed good accuracy (79.5% ± 12.0%), sensitivity (81.1% ± 13.5%), and specificity (66.0% ± 23.8%) for sleep detection but was outperformed by the proprietary ActiLife algorithms. The magnitude and trend of bias for total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset were similar between algorithms. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were statistically equivalent for the Cole-Kripke (Actilife) and vanHees2015 algorithms compared to the Sadeh (Actilife) algorithm. The Cole-Kripke (ActiLife) demonstrated higher sensitivity (90.5%) to detect sleep but lower specificity (61.2%) than Cole-Kripke (GGIR) (sensitivity: 62.7%, specificity: 79.9%). Sadeh and Cole-Kripke estimated sleep outcomes were not statistically equivalent between implementations in ActiLife and GGIR.

Conclusions: The open-source vanHees2015 algorithm performed well but slightly worse than the proprietary ActiLife algorithms in children. The open-source nature vanHees2015 makes it ideal for clinical pediatric use. Implementation of the Sadeh and Cole-Kripke algorithms in the proprietary ActiLife and open-source GGIR software yield different sleep estimates, so comparisons between studies using these different implementations should be avoided.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估对疑似睡眠障碍儿童进行动图睡眠估算的开源和专有处理的性能：与多导睡眠监测仪的比较。

研究目的在疑似睡眠障碍儿童中，评估基于动图的开源和专有睡眠算法与多导睡眠图的性能比较：在一家睡眠诊所，110 名儿童（5-12 岁，54% 为女性，50% 为黑人，82% 有睡眠障碍）在进行夜间多导睡眠图检查时佩戴了腕式 ActiGraph GT9X。使用开源的 GGIR 和专有的 ActiLife 软件对动图数据进行睡眠或觉醒评分。对算法和多导睡眠图之间的一致性进行了差异分析和逐时分析，并进行了等效性测试：结果：开源的vanHees2015算法在睡眠检测方面表现出良好的准确性（79.5% ± 12.0%）、灵敏度（81.1% ± 13.5%）和特异性（66.0% ± 23.8%），但在性能上优于专有的ActiLife算法。不同算法在总睡眠时间、睡眠效率、睡眠开始潜伏期和睡眠开始后唤醒方面的偏差程度和趋势相似。与 Sadeh（Actilife）算法相比，Cole-Kripke（Actilife）算法和 vanHees2015 算法的总睡眠时间和睡眠效率在统计学上相当。与 Cole-Kripke（GGIR）（灵敏度：62.7%，特异性：79.9%）相比，Cole-Kripke（ActiLife）检测睡眠的灵敏度更高（90.5%），但特异性（61.2%）较低。Sadeh和Cole-Kripke估计的睡眠结果在统计学上与ActiLife和GGIR的实施结果不相上下：开源的vanHees2015算法在儿童中表现良好，但略逊于专有的ActiLife算法。vanHees2015的开源特性使其非常适合儿科临床使用。在专有的 ActiLife 和开源的 GGIR 软件中实施 Sadeh 和 Cole-Kripke 算法会产生不同的睡眠估计值，因此应避免在使用这些不同实施方案的研究之间进行比较。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Sleep Medicine-Neurology (clinical)

CiteScore

8.70

自引率

10.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： SLEEP® publishes findings from studies conducted at any level of analysis, including: Genes Molecules Cells Physiology Neural systems and circuits Behavior and cognition Self-report SLEEP® publishes articles that use a wide variety of scientific approaches and address a broad range of topics. These may include, but are not limited to: Basic and neuroscience studies of sleep and circadian mechanisms In vitro and animal models of sleep, circadian rhythms, and human disorders Pre-clinical human investigations, including the measurement and manipulation of sleep and circadian rhythms Studies in clinical or population samples. These may address factors influencing sleep and circadian rhythms (e.g., development and aging, and social and environmental influences) and relationships between sleep, circadian rhythms, health, and disease Clinical trials, epidemiology studies, implementation, and dissemination research.