Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

SLEEPYLAND: trust begins with fair evaluation of automatic sleep staging models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SOMNUS, a soft-voting ensemble trained on about 220,000 hours of heterogeneous sleep recordings, outperforms individual models in 94.9% of comparisons across 24 datasets and matches scorer consensus better than any individual expert on…

desk verdict A genuinely useful open benchmarking resource whose abstract overclaims SOTA superiority; the paper's own Table 3 contains counterexamples, and the human-expert comparison needs a consensus-framing caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08574 v2 pith:UJPAO5AN submitted 2025-06-10 cs.LG

Alvise Dei Rossi , Matteo Metaldi , Michal Bechny , Irina Filchenko , Julia van der Meer , Markus H. Schmidt , Claudio L.A. Bassetti , Athina Tzovara
show 2 more authors
Francesca D. Faraci Luigi Fiorillo
This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords automaticsleepstagingdeeplearningmodelbenchmarkingensemblesoft-votingbiasquantificationinter-scorervariabilityevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the bottleneck for clinical adoption of automatic sleep staging is not model architecture but fair evaluation: researchers need a common benchmark with harmonized data, standardized splits, and open pre-trained weights. To that end it builds SLEEPYLAND, an open-source framework trained on roughly 220,000 hours of in-domain and 84,000 hours of out-of-domain recordings from the NSRR repository, and it introduces SOMNUS, a soft-voting ensemble that combines three architectures (U-Sleep, DeepResNet, SleepTransformer) across single- and multi-channel EEG/EOG setups. The central claim is that SOMNUS achieves macro-F1 scores between 68.7% and 87.2% across twenty-four datasets, outperforms individual models in 94.9% of cases, and even beats previous state-of-the-art models that were trained on the evaluation data while SOMNUS treated that data as out-of-domain. On two multi-scored out-of-domain datasets it exceeds the best human scorer's agreement with the scorer consensus, and its internal disagreement metrics predict where human scorers disagree with ROC AUC up to 0.828. A sympathetic reader would care because, if right, a simple averaging ensemble over diverse training data becomes a strong default for sleep staging and a template for fair model evaluation across clinical signal-annotation tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is SOMNUS, a soft-voting ensemble: the average of per-epoch probability distributions over the five sleep stages (Wake, N1, N2, N3, REM) across all trained models, where the models vary in architecture (convolutional U-Sleep, residual-recurrent DeepResNet, attention-based SleepTransformer) and in channel configuration (EEG-only, EOG-only, EEG+EOG), with a majority vote across channel derivations at test time. Soft voting is what allows disagreement to be measured: the ensemble's Shannon entropy and the pairwise cosine distances between constituent predictions quantify model uncertainty, and the paper shows these two quantities track human scorer disagreement. The other supporting machinery is methodological: a unified preprocessing, training, and split protocol borrowed from U-Sleep and applied to harmonized NSRR data; the GAMLSS distributional-regression framework used to model bias of performance metrics and predicted clinical markers (like total sleep time and wake after sleep onset) as functions of age, gender, AHI, and PLMI; and the multi-scorer evaluation protocol of Equations (2)–(4), which builds soft- and hard-consensus labels from at most five physicians and computes agreement via Cohen's $\kappa$ and hypnodensity cosine similarity (ACS).

What would settle it

Take a set of PSG recordings scored by a large independent panel (say 20 or more physicians) with an adjudicated gold-standard hypnogram, run the released SOMNUS on them out-of-domain, and check whether its agreement with that adjudicated reference still exceeds the best individual expert's; if the margin shrinks or reverses, the reported human-beating results depend on the five-scorer majority reference rather than on superior staging.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SLEEPYLAND trains three state-of-the-art architectures — U-Sleep, DeepResNet, and SleepTransformer — under a single harmonized protocol on the largest collection of NSRR polysomnograms assembled to date, and it releases the weights openly. SOMNUS (Soft-voting Over Multiple Networks for Unified Sleep-staging) averages the per-epoch probability vectors of all architecture and channel-configuration variants (Equation (1)). The paper's central claim is that this untrained, simple averaging ensemble generalizes better than any constituent: it reaches recording-level macro-F1 between 68.7% and 87.2% across 17 in-domain and 7 out-of-domain datasets, is the best model in 94.9% of pairwise comparisons and is never significantly worse, and it matches or exceeds previously published state-of-the-art scores even in the hardest comparison, where the competitor was trained in-domain and SOMNUS saw the same data only at test time. On the multi-scored Dreem Open Datasets (each recording staged by five physicians), SOMNUS — never trained on those datasets — agrees with the expert majority better than any individual scorer ($\kappa = 0.89$ on the healthy cohort, 0.85 on the OSA cohort; macro-F1 85.2% vs 80.8% and 80.2% vs 75.9%), and its per-epoch entropy together with inter-model divergence flags epochs where the human scorers themselves disagree (ROC AUC up to 0.828). The paper further claims, from a GAMLSS analysis on the 6,633-recording Bern Sleep-Wake Registry subset, that all models and the ensemble carry comparable age-, gender-, AHI-, and PLMI-related biases, so ensembling improves robustness but does not resolve systemic bias.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison of models against human experts rests on treating the majority or soft consensus of a handful of physician scorers (at most five, Equations (2)–(4)) as the ground truth for correct sleep staging, so a model that approximates that majority can beat every individual expert even when its output is not objectively more accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SOMNUS's 94.9% win rate over individual models holds, an untrained soft vote across architectures and channel setups is the most dependable default for plug-and-play sleep staging across heterogeneous clinics and hardware.
  • Size and diversity of training data, not architecture novelty, drive out-of-domain generalization: models trained on a single dataset can fail catastrophically on other data, while SOMNUS stays stable across all 24 datasets.
  • Releasing pre-trained weights lets clinics test models on their own recordings with data staying on-site, making fair evaluation and local validation feasible without transferring sensitive polysomnograms.
  • Ensemble entropy and inter-model divergence can be used in practice to flag ambiguous epochs for expert review, providing a data-driven proxy for human uncertainty.
  • Bias quantification shows no single architecture consistently minimizes demographic and clinical bias, so ensemble accuracy gains do not translate into bias reduction; bias-aware training and standardized reporting of clinical markers are needed before routine clinical use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • With only five sources in the consensus equations, SOMNUS can beat each individual expert by approximating a majority vote even if it never captures a statistically better signal; a fairer clinical benchmark would compare against an adjudicated or much larger panel of scorers, which would likely shrink the reported gap.
  • The same disagreement metric could be inverted at deployment: instead of returning one hypnogram, the ensemble could route only high-entropy epochs to a human reader, turning the human-uncertainty proxy into a workflow tool that cuts manual review cost.
  • If data diversity is the dominant factor here, the principle transfers to other clinical annotation tasks with similar inter-rater disagreement, such as EEG event scoring or medical image segmentation: a soft vote of heterogeneous models on a large harmonized pool is a natural baseline before designing new architectures.
  • Because the models are released openly, they invite fine-tuning on local scorer styles; the paper's bias results imply such fine-tuning risks entrenching local bias unless the reference labels are themselves scrutinized.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces SLEEPYLAND, an open-source Docker-based framework for benchmarking automatic sleep staging models. The authors train U-Sleep, DeepResNet, and SleepTransformer on harmonized NSRR data (about 27,494 recordings) under a unified protocol, evaluate them across 24 in-domain and out-of-domain datasets in single- and multi-channel EEG/EOG configurations, and introduce SOMNUS, a soft-voting ensemble across architectures and channel setups. They report SOMNUS macro-F1 scores between 68.7% and 87.2%, superiority over individual models in 94.9% of comparisons, and state-of-the-art performance, including cases where compared models were trained in-domain while SOMNUS was out-of-domain. Using GAMLSS on the Bern Sleep-Wake Registry (N=6,633), they quantify biases in performance and clinical markers by age, gender, AHI, and PLMI. On the multi-scored DOD-H and DOD-O datasets, they compare SOMNUS against five human scorers and SimpleSleepNet, report higher agreement with the scorer consensus than any individual expert, and train logistic-regression predictors of scorer disagreement from ensemble entropy and pairwise model divergence (ROC AUC up to 0.828). The manuscript honestly concludes that clinical use is not yet possible, but several headline claims, especially the state-of-the-art superiority wording, go beyond what the evidence supports.

Significance. SLEEPYLAND has the potential to become a valuable community resource: it publicly releases Docker images, pre-trained weights, and a GUI, and it benchmarks three architectures on an unprecedentedly large harmonized data pool with a common training/evaluation protocol. The within-framework comparisons are carefully done, with paired Wilcoxon tests adjusted for multiple comparisons and both recording-level and dataset-level metrics reported, and the GAMLSS bias analysis over a large clinical registry is a substantive contribution. The disagreement-prediction result is falsifiable and evaluated with leave-one-recording-out cross-validation. The main caveat is that the 'surpasses previous SOTA' superlative in the Abstract and Discussion is not supported by Table 3, which contains direct counterexamples and is not a controlled head-to-head comparison. The resource itself and the ensemble-over-individual-models result remain valuable once this claim is appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Table 3] The Abstract's claim that 'SOMNUS surpasses previous SoA methods, even including cases where compared models were trained ID while SOMNUS treated the same data as OOD' is contradicted by Table 3. On PHYS, U-Sleep (in-domain) MF1 is 0.79 versus SOMNUS (out-of-domain) 0.73; on SEDF-SC, U-Sleep (in-domain) MF1 is 0.79 versus SOMNUS 0.75, and SleepTransformer (in-domain) MF1 is 0.79 versus SOMNUS 0.75. The Discussion's statement that SOMNUS 'consistently exceeds' previously reported SOTA performance is likewise too strong. The Results text ('SOMNUS often matches or closely approaches their performance') is accurate. Please revise the Abstract and Discussion to say that SOMNUS matches or exceeds prior methods in most compared settings, and remove the unqualified in-domain-versus-out-of-domain superiority formulation.
  2. [Table 3 and 'Benchmarking, ensembling and generalization'] The SOTA comparison in Table 3 is not a controlled head-to-head benchmark. As the caption states, SOMNUS metrics are computed using the same aggregation as each original study, and the table mixes recording-level and dataset-level metrics, different test splits, channel sets, and preprocessing pipelines (e.g., PHYS, SEDF-SC). A published number from another study cannot establish 'surpasses previous state-of-the-art' without a common evaluation protocol. The within-framework comparisons (SOMNUS versus individual models in Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 4-19) are properly controlled and support the ensemble claim; the SOTA-superiority claim should either be backed by a protocol-matched comparison on identical test recordings or explicitly presented as a non-head-to-head literature reference.
  3. [Model-ensemble versus human-ensemble; Methods Eqs. (2)-(4), Table 6] The comparison against human experts rests on the assumption that the four-scorer consensus, or soft consensus, is the appropriate reference for 'better' staging. This is a legitimate operationalization for consensus alignment, but it is not evidence of objective clinical correctness, and the Abstract's 'SOMNUS exceeds the best human scorer' should be qualified as 'alignment with the consensus of the other scorers.' Note also the asymmetry in the reference set: for each human scorer, the consensus excludes that scorer, whereas for SOMNUS the consensus is derived from the four most reliable scorers. With at most five scorers and only 25 and 55 recordings in DOD-H and DOD-O, the comparison is statistically informative but clinically limited; this limitation should be stated explicitly where Table 6 is discussed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3 caption] The footer contains a typo: 'dateset used during training' should be 'dataset used during training.'
  2. [Abstract and Results] The phrase 'outperforming individual models in 94.9% of cases' is not precisely defined in the main text; please specify the comparison unit, such as architecture-by-channel-configuration-by-dataset combinations, and the total number of comparisons.
  3. [Ensemble disagreement as an indicator of scoring ambiguity] The logistic-regression disagreement predictor is described only as using features from 'both sources of variability'; please define the exact feature vector (entropy plus mean, standard deviation, and maximum of the pairwise cosine distances) and the binary target threshold for scorer 'disagreement' in one place in the Methods.
  4. [Table 6] The DOD-O SimpleSleepNet row contains irregular spacing in the reported values (e.g., '55.4 ± 16.8' and '89.7 ± 10.5'); please normalize the formatting across all rows.
  5. [Methods, Sleep staging algorithms] For U-Sleep, the text states that the initial learning rate was increased from the original 10^-7 to 10^-5; since this is a 100-fold change, please also report the learning-rate schedule and state whether the change was motivated by the larger training pool or by stability.
  6. [Tables 4 and 5] The GAMLSS result tables use blank cells to denote excluded predictors; a brief footnote directly under each table, rather than only in the body text, would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOMNUS benchmarking, consensus-alignment, and disagreement-prediction claims are evaluated against external expert-scored labels and external SOTA numbers; same-author method citations (GAMLSS, ACS) rest on standard external statistics and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and its main claims are tested against quantities not used to construct them. SOMNUS (Eq. 1) is a fixed 1/M soft-voting average of predictions from U-Sleep, DeepResNet, and SleepTransformer trained on harmonized NSRR data; no weight or parameter is fitted to the labels on which it is evaluated, so the claimed 94.9% superiority over individual models is an empirical comparison with statistical testing rather than a construction. The consensus targets (Eqs. 2-4) are defined exclusively from the five human scorers of DOD-H/DOD-O, never from SOMNUS outputs, so the claims that SOMNUS reproduces scorer consensus better than any expert (Tables 6-7) are external benchmark results, not self-definitional. The disagreement-prediction analysis uses model-internal features (Eq. 7 entropy of the ensemble output; Eq. 8 pairwise cosine distances among constituents) with human disagreement as the target, evaluated with leave-one-recording-out cross-validation (Methods), so the reported AUCs of 0.823/0.828 are honest out-of-sample estimates of a cross-modal relationship, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The GAMLSS bias analysis (Tables 4-5) cites the authors' own framework [41,42], and the soft-consensus/ACS methodology cites [12]; however, these are method-reuse self-citations whose substance is independently supported: GAMLSS and inflated-beta regression are standard external statistics [55,56], and ACS is a parameter-free definition (mean cosine similarity, Eq. 6). The load-bearing benchmarking claims do not rest on any same-author 'uniqueness' theorem or ansatz smuggled by citation. The weaknesses that exist are correctness or comparison-protocol concerns, not circularity: Table 3's own numbers show in-domain U-Sleep and SleepTransformer beating SOMNUS on PHYS and SEDF-SC, contradicting the abstract's unconditional 'surpasses previous SoA... even when trained ID' wording, and the SOTA protocol adapts each SOMNUS metric to the original study's aggregation; these are validity issues that belong outside the circularity pass. No equation in the manuscript defines a predicted quantity in terms of the target it is claimed to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical. No fundamental constants or theoretical parameters are introduced; the only fitted quantities are statistical models used for bias quantification and disagreement prediction. The main benchmarking claim rests on pooling assumptions and on expert consensus as ground truth.

free parameters (2)
  • GAMLSS regression coefficients for bias analysis = Reported in Tables 4 and 5 (e.g., intercept for MF1 mu = 1.12, gender effect = -0.06)
    Location and scale parameters for performance metrics and clinical markers are fitted to the BSWR subset via GAIC stepwise selection; the bias conclusions depend on these fitted statistical estimates.
  • Logistic regression weights for ensemble disagreement prediction = ROC AUC 0.823 on DOD-H and 0.828 on DOD-O
    Trained with leave-one-recording-out CV on the same two multi-scorer datasets; the claim that ensemble disagreement predicts human uncertainty rests on this fit rather than on an external prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AASM expert-scored hypnograms are an adequate ground truth for sleep staging performance.
    All benchmarking metrics compare model predictions to expert labels; systematic label errors or inter-scorer noise propagate into every headline number (Datasets and Methods).
  • domain assumption Harmonized NSRR datasets can be pooled into one training distribution despite different hardware, sampling rates, and scoring rule origins.
    Training treats all datasets as labeled PSG segments from one pool; re-alignments from Rechtschaffen and Kales to AASM for APPLES, SHHS, SOF, and SEDF are assumed valid (Supplementary Notes, Datasets).
  • domain assumption The majority or soft consensus of a small number of physicians is the correct target for automatic staging.
    DOD-H and DOD-O comparisons define consensus as ground truth (Equations 2 to 4); if individual scorer styles are clinically meaningful, the human-expert comparison loses force.
  • domain assumption GAMLSS with inflated Beta for bounded metrics and Normal for marker differences adequately captures bias.
    Zero and one inflation parameters are fixed at intercepts, only location and scale are modeled, and GAIC stepwise selection determines predictors; the bias conclusions inherit this specification (Methods, Bias on performance and clinical markers).
  • domain assumption DOD-H and DOD-O, with 25 and 55 recordings, are representative out-of-domain multi-scorer samples.
    The head-to-head human alignment results and disagreement AUCs rely on these small, two-center samples.
  • domain assumption NSRR harmonization via the wild-to-fancy service preserves signal equivalence across datasets.
    The framework's comparability depends on EDF to H5 conversion and resampling not altering discriminative signal content (Methods, SLEEPYLAND architecture).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SLEEPYLAND: trust begins with fair evaluation of automatic sleep staging models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJPAO5AN

@misc{pith2026250608574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SLEEPYLAND: trust begins with fair evaluation of automatic sleep staging models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJPAO5AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08574}
}
read the original abstract

Despite advances in deep learning for automatic sleep staging, clinical adoption remains limited due to challenges in fair model evaluation, generalization across diverse datasets, model bias, and variability in human annotations. We present SLEEPYLAND, an open-source sleep staging evaluation framework designed to address these barriers. It includes more than 220'000 hours in-domain (ID) sleep recordings, and more than 84'000 hours out-of-domain (OOD) sleep recordings, spanning a broad range of ages, sleep-wake disorders, and hardware setups. We release pre-trained models based on high-performing SoA architectures and evaluate them under standardized conditions across single- and multi-channel EEG/EOG configurations. We introduce SOMNUS, an ensemble combining models across architectures and channel setups via soft voting. SOMNUS achieves robust performance across twenty-four different datasets, with macro-F1 scores between 68.7% and 87.2%, outperforming individual models in 94.9% of cases. Notably, SOMNUS surpasses previous SoA methods, even including cases where compared models were trained ID while SOMNUS treated the same data as OOD. Using a subset of the BSWR (N=6'633), we quantify model biases linked to age, gender, AHI, and PLMI, showing that while ensemble improves robustness, no model architecture consistently minimizes bias in performance and clinical markers estimation. In evaluations on OOD multi-annotated datasets (DOD-H, DOD-O), SOMNUS exceeds the best human scorer, i.e., MF1 85.2% vs 80.8% on DOD-H, and 80.2% vs 75.9% on DOD-O, better reproducing the scorer consensus than any individual expert (k = 0.89/0.85 and ACS = 0.95/0.94 for healthy/OSA cohorts). Finally, we introduce ensemble disagreement metrics - entropy and inter-model divergence based - predicting regions of scorer disagreement with ROC AUCs up to 0.828, offering a data-driven proxy for human uncertainty.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 25(10), 1351–1358 (2018)

    Zhang, G.-Q., Cui, L., Mueller, R., Tao, S., Kim, M., Rueschman, M., Mariani, S., Mobley, D., Redline, S.: The national sleep researc h resource: towards a sleep data commons. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 25(10), 1351–1358 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    American journal of respirator y and critical care medicine 197(8), 1080–1083 (2018)

    Bakker, J.P., Tavakkoli, A., Rueschman, M., Wang, W., Andrews, R., Malhotra, A., Owens, R.L., Anand, A., Dudley, K.A., Patel, S.R.: Gastric banding surgery versus continuous positive airway pressure for obst ructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. American journal of respirator y and critical care medicine 197(8), 1080–1083 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    PloS one 9(12), 114565 (2014)

    Moore IV, H., Leary, E., Lee, S.-Y., Carrillo, O., Stubbs, R., Peppard , P., Young, T., Widrow, B., Mignot, E.: Design and validation of a periodic leg movement detector. PloS one 9(12), 114565 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    L., Got- tlieb, D.J., Green, S., Guilleminault, C., Hirshkowitz, M., Hy de, P.R., et al

    Quan, S.F., Chan, C.S., Dement, W.C., Gevins, A., Goodwin, J. L., Got- tlieb, D.J., Green, S., Guilleminault, C., Hirshkowitz, M., Hy de, P.R., et al. : The association between obstructive sleep apnea and neurocogni- tive performance—the apnea positive pressure long-term efficacy stud y (apples). Sleep 34(3), 303–314 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    The Journal of pediatrics 142(4), 383–389 (2003) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template 10 SLEEPYLAND

    Rosen, C.L., Larkin, E.K., Kirchner, H.L., Emancipator, J.L., Bivin s, S.F., Surovec, S.A., Martin, R.J., Redline, S.: Prevalence and risk fac tors for sleep-disordered breathing in 8-to 11-year-old children: associati on with race and prematurity. The Journal of pediatrics 142(4), 383–389 (2003) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template 10 SLEEPYLAND

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 151(3), 682–687 (1995)

    Redline, S., Tishler, P.V., Tosteson, T.D., Williamson, J., Ku mp, K., Browner, I., Ferrette, V., Krejci, P.: The familial aggregation of obstr uc- tive sleep apnea. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 151(3), 682–687 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    : A randomized trial of adenotonsillectomy for childhood sleep apnea

    Marcus, C.L., Moore, R.H., Rosen, C.L., Giordani, B., Garetz, S.L., T ay- lor, H.G., Mitchell, R.B., Amin, R., Katz, E.S., Arens, R., et al. : A randomized trial of adenotonsillectomy for childhood sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 368, 2366–2376 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    , Giordani, B., Marcus, C.L., Moore, R.H., Rosen, C.L., Arens, R., et al

    Redline, S., Amin, R., Beebe, D., Chervin, R.D., Garetz, S.L. , Giordani, B., Marcus, C.L., Moore, R.H., Rosen, C.L., Arens, R., et al. : The child- hood adenotonsillectomy trial (chat): rationale, design, and challenges of a randomized controlled trial evaluating a standard surgical procedure in a pediatric population. Sleep 34(11), 1509–1517 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Sleep 35(6), 757–767 (2012)

    Rosen, C.L., Auckley, D., Benca, R., Foldvary-Schaefer, N., Iber, C., Kapur, V., Rueschman, M., Zee, P., Redline, S.: A multisite random ized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitr ation versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis a...

    2012

  2. [10]

    Sleep 38(6), 877–888 (2015)

    Chen, X., Wang, R., Zee, P., Lutsey, P.L., Javaheri, S., Alc´ antara, C ., Jackson, C.L., Williams, M.A., Redline, S.: Racial/ethnic differenc es in sleep disturbances: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis ( mesa). Sleep 38(6), 877–888 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    , Moore, H.E., Carrillo, O., Lin, L., Han, F., Yan, H., et al.: Neural network analysis of sleep stages enables efficient diagnosis of narcolepsy

    Stephansen, J.B., Olesen, A.N., Olsen, M., Ambati, A., Leary, E.B. , Moore, H.E., Carrillo, O., Lin, L., Han, F., Yan, H., et al.: Neural network analysis of sleep stages enables efficient diagnosis of narcolepsy. Nature communications 9(1), 5229 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 59(12), 2217–2225 (2011)

    Blackwell, T., Yaffe, K., Ancoli-Israel, S., Redline, S., Ensru d, K.E., Stefanick, M.L., Laffan, A., Stone, K.L., in Men Study Group, O.F.: Asso- ciations between sleep architecture and sleep-disordered breath ing and cognition in older community-dwelling men: the osteoporotic ...

    2011

  5. [13]

    Sleep 38(3), 411–421 (2015)

    Relationships between sleep stages and changes in cognitive functi on in older men: the mros sleep study. Sleep 38(3), 411–421 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Developmental Psychobiology 63(5), 945–959 (2021) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template SLEEPYLAND 11

    DiPietro, J.A., Raghunathan, R.S., Wu, H.-T., Bai, J., Watson, H., Sgam- bati, F.P., Henderson, J.L., Pien, G.W.: Fetal heart rate during mate rnal sleep. Developmental Psychobiology 63(5), 945–959 (2021) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template SLEEPYLAND 11

    2021

  7. [15]

    American journal of obstetrics and gynecol ogy 228(4), 459–1 (2023)

    DiPietro, J.A., Bai, J., Sgambati, F.P., Henderson, J.L., Watson, H., Raghunathan, R.S., Pien, G.W.: Fetal heart rate responses to maternal sleep-disordered breathing. American journal of obstetrics and gynecol ogy 228(4), 459–1 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Scientific Data 9(1), 421 (2022)

    Lee, H., Li, B., DeForte, S., Splaingard, M.L., Huang, Y., Chi, Y., Linwood, S.L.: A large collection of real-world pediatric sleep studie s. Scientific Data 9(1), 421 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    : The sleep heart health study: design, rationale, and methods

    Quan, S.F., Howard, B.V., Iber, C., Kiley, J.P., Nieto, F.J., O’C onnor, G.T., Rapoport, D.M., Redline, S., Robbins, J., Samet, J.M., et al. : The sleep heart health study: design, rationale, and methods. Sleep 20(12), 1077–1085 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    : Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women

    Cummings, S.R., Black, D.M., Nevitt, M.C., Browner, W.S., Cau ley, J.A., Genant, H.K., Mascioli, S.R., Scott, J.C., Seeley, D.G., Steiger, P., et al. : Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. Jama 263(5), 665–668 (1990)

    1990

  11. [19]

    A., Ancoli- Israel, S., Yaffe, K.: Sleep-disordered breathing and cognition in old er women

    Spira, A.P., Blackwell, T., Stone, K.L., Redline, S., Cauley, J. A., Ancoli- Israel, S., Yaffe, K.: Sleep-disordered breathing and cognition in old er women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 56(1), 45–50 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    WMJ: official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 108(5), 246 (2009)

    Young, T., Palta, M., Dempsey, J., Peppard, P.E., Nieto, F.J., Hla, K .M.: Burden of sleep apnea: rationale, design, and major findings of the wis- consin sleep cohort study. WMJ: official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 108(5), 246 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2017)

    Berry, R.B., Brooks, R., Gamaldo, C., Harding, S.M., Lloyd, R.M., Q uan, S.F., Troester, M.T., Vaughn, B.V.: AASM scoring manual updates for 2017 (version 2.4). American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    NPJ digital me dicine 4(1), 1–12 (2021)

    Perslev, M., Darkner, S., Kempfner, L., Nikolic, M., Jennum, P .J., Igel, C.: U-sleep: resilient high-frequency sleep staging. NPJ digital me dicine 4(1), 1–12 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineerin g 28(9), 1955–1965 (2020)

    Guillot, A., Sauvet, F., During, E.H., Thorey, V.: Dreem open dataset s: Multi-scored sleep datasets to compare human and automated sleep stag- ing. IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineerin g 28(9), 1955–1965 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    circulation 101(23), 215–220 (2000) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template 12 SLEEPYLAND

    Goldberger, A.L., Amaral, L.A., Glass, L., Hausdorff, J.M., Ivanov, P.C., Mark, R.G., Mietus, J.E., Moody, G.B., Peng, C.-K., Stanley, H.E .: Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: components of a new researc h resource for complex physiologic signals. circulation 101(23), 2...

    2000

  17. [25]

    In: 2018 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC), vol

    Ghassemi, M.M., Moody, B.E., Lehman, L.-W.H., Song, C., Li, Q., Sun , H., Mark, R.G., Westover, M.B., Clifford, G.D.: You snooze, you win: the physionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2018. In: 2018 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC), vol. 45, pp. 1–4 (2018). IEEE

    2018

  18. [26]

    Kemp, B., Zwinderman, A.H., Tuk, B., Kamphuisen, H.A., Oberye, J .J.: Analysis of a sleep-dependent neuronal feedback loop: the slow-wav e microcontinuity of the eeg. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineeri ng 47(9), 1185–1194 (2000) Springer Nature 2025 LATEX template SLEEP...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.