人工智能还是睡眠专家:比较儿童和青少年的多导睡眠图睡眠阶段。

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Sleep Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1093/sleep/zsaf053
Annemette L Moeller, Mathias Perslev, Cecilie Paulsrud, Steffen U Thorsen, Helle Leonthin, Nanette M Debes, Jannet Svensson, Poul Jennum
{"title":"人工智能还是睡眠专家:比较儿童和青少年的多导睡眠图睡眠阶段。","authors":"Annemette L Moeller, Mathias Perslev, Cecilie Paulsrud, Steffen U Thorsen, Helle Leonthin, Nanette M Debes, Jannet Svensson, Poul Jennum","doi":"10.1093/sleep/zsaf053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objectives: </strong>The manual annotation of polysomnography (PSG) hypnograms is difficult and time-consuming. U-Sleep is an alternative, fast and publicly available, automated sleep staging system evaluated in adult PSGs. In this study we compare the staging done by sleep experts and U-sleep in a pediatric sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PSGs from 56 children aged 6-17 years old (healthy or with a chronic disease) were compared manually annotated with the result of U-sleep. The two outcomes were compared using F1 overlap scores, accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and correlation coefficients. A qualitative analysis of the most significant systematic differences between the manual and automated scoring was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>U-sleep matched the manually scored hypnograms with an overall mean F1 score (predicted performance) of 0.75 and reached an accuracy of 83.9% and an overall kappa value of 0.77. The stage-wise F1 scores, U-sleep achieved an F1 score of 0.79 in stage Wake, 0.40 in N1, 0.86 in N2, 0.84 in N3, and 0.86 in REM. The correlation between U-sleep and the manual scorer was moderately or very strong in all sleep stages (r = 0.57-0.81).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, there is a high degree of agreement between manual and automatic scoring. This suggests that U-sleep is a valid and effective method for identifying sleep stages based on normal PSGs in a pediatric population. The disagreement was within what is expected for interscorer variation. Further evaluation needs of AI sleep scoring models includes analysis of outliers and pathological sleep staging - which is also a challenge in manual annotation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22018,"journal":{"name":"Sleep","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence or sleep experts: Comparing polysomnographic sleep staging in children and adolescents.\",\"authors\":\"Annemette L Moeller, Mathias Perslev, Cecilie Paulsrud, Steffen U Thorsen, Helle Leonthin, Nanette M Debes, Jannet Svensson, Poul Jennum\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sleep/zsaf053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study objectives: </strong>The manual annotation of polysomnography (PSG) hypnograms is difficult and time-consuming. U-Sleep is an alternative, fast and publicly available, automated sleep staging system evaluated in adult PSGs. In this study we compare the staging done by sleep experts and U-sleep in a pediatric sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PSGs from 56 children aged 6-17 years old (healthy or with a chronic disease) were compared manually annotated with the result of U-sleep. The two outcomes were compared using F1 overlap scores, accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and correlation coefficients. A qualitative analysis of the most significant systematic differences between the manual and automated scoring was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>U-sleep matched the manually scored hypnograms with an overall mean F1 score (predicted performance) of 0.75 and reached an accuracy of 83.9% and an overall kappa value of 0.77. The stage-wise F1 scores, U-sleep achieved an F1 score of 0.79 in stage Wake, 0.40 in N1, 0.86 in N2, 0.84 in N3, and 0.86 in REM. The correlation between U-sleep and the manual scorer was moderately or very strong in all sleep stages (r = 0.57-0.81).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, there is a high degree of agreement between manual and automatic scoring. This suggests that U-sleep is a valid and effective method for identifying sleep stages based on normal PSGs in a pediatric population. The disagreement was within what is expected for interscorer variation. Further evaluation needs of AI sleep scoring models includes analysis of outliers and pathological sleep staging - which is also a challenge in manual annotation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sleep\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-28\",\"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/zsaf053\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sleep","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsaf053","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

摘要

研究目的:人工标注多导睡眠图难度大,耗时长。U-Sleep是一种可替代的、快速的、可公开获得的、用于成人psg评估的自动睡眠分期系统。在这项研究中,我们比较了睡眠专家和U-sleep在儿童样本中的分期。方法:将56例6-17岁儿童(健康或患有慢性疾病)的psg与U-sleep的结果进行人工注释比较。使用F1重叠评分、准确性、Cohen’s kappa和相关系数对两种结果进行比较。对手动和自动评分之间最重要的系统差异进行了定性分析。结果:U-sleep与人工评分的催眠图相匹配,总体平均F1评分(预测表现)为0.75,准确率为83.9%,总体kappa值为0.77。各阶段F1评分中,U-sleep的F1评分在Wake阶段为0.79,N1阶段为0.40,N2阶段为0.86,N3阶段为0.84,REM阶段为0.86,U-sleep与人工评分的相关性在各睡眠阶段均为中等或非常强(r = 0.57-0.81)。结论:总的来说,人工评分和自动评分之间有高度的一致性。这表明U-sleep是一种有效的方法,可以根据儿童的正常psg来确定睡眠阶段。这种分歧是在得分手之间变化的预期范围内的。人工智能睡眠评分模型的进一步评估需求包括异常值分析和病理睡眠分期,这也是人工标注的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence or sleep experts: Comparing polysomnographic sleep staging in children and adolescents.

Study objectives: The manual annotation of polysomnography (PSG) hypnograms is difficult and time-consuming. U-Sleep is an alternative, fast and publicly available, automated sleep staging system evaluated in adult PSGs. In this study we compare the staging done by sleep experts and U-sleep in a pediatric sample.

Methods: PSGs from 56 children aged 6-17 years old (healthy or with a chronic disease) were compared manually annotated with the result of U-sleep. The two outcomes were compared using F1 overlap scores, accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and correlation coefficients. A qualitative analysis of the most significant systematic differences between the manual and automated scoring was performed.

Results: U-sleep matched the manually scored hypnograms with an overall mean F1 score (predicted performance) of 0.75 and reached an accuracy of 83.9% and an overall kappa value of 0.77. The stage-wise F1 scores, U-sleep achieved an F1 score of 0.79 in stage Wake, 0.40 in N1, 0.86 in N2, 0.84 in N3, and 0.86 in REM. The correlation between U-sleep and the manual scorer was moderately or very strong in all sleep stages (r = 0.57-0.81).

Conclusions: Overall, there is a high degree of agreement between manual and automatic scoring. This suggests that U-sleep is a valid and effective method for identifying sleep stages based on normal PSGs in a pediatric population. The disagreement was within what is expected for interscorer variation. Further evaluation needs of AI sleep scoring models includes analysis of outliers and pathological sleep staging - which is also a challenge in manual annotation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sleep
Sleep Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
10.70%
发文量
0
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信