Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark Dataset: A Longitudinal Wearable Sleep Data Set of Hospital Workers for Modeling and Understanding Sleep Behaviors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces the TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark dataset, 6,012 wearable sleep recordings from 139 hospital employees over ten weeks, and uses it to show that night-shift hospital workers sleep less and have more fragmented REM sleep…

desk verdict A genuinely useful longitudinal wearable sleep dataset release, with benchmarks that work as demonstrations; the shift-work REM findings rest on an unverified device-bias assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03520 v1 pith:HJISVPPA submitted 2025-07-04 cs.HC

Tiantian Feng , Brandon M Booth , Karel Mundnich , Emily Zhou , Benjamin Girault , Kristina Lerman , Shrikanth Narayanan This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords wearablesleepdatasetstageclassificationFitbitCharge2hospitalshiftworkersPSQIlongitudinalstudyheartratemonitoringmachinelearningbenchmark
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's central claim is that the TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark dataset—6,012 sleep recordings with continuous heart rate and device-labeled sleep stages from 139 hospital employees over ten weeks, plus demographics and PSQI self-reports—is a valid public resource for studying real-world sleep and benchmarking machine-learning models. The paper extends its earlier TILES-2018 dataset, and argues the combined cohort of 349 people and roughly 15,000 sleep recordings supports analyses that laboratory polysomnography datasets cannot: naturalistic, multi-week, shift-schedule comparisons. Its analyses find night-shift hospital workers report worse sleep quality, sleep fewer minutes, and exhibit more fragmented REM sleep, with REM-to-light transitions more likely than day-shift workers. It also reports benchmarks where deep time-series models outperform random forests and zero-shot LLMs at predicting self-reported PSQI scores, while random forests best predict demographics from sleep features. This matters because a public, longitudinal, wearable benchmark with both objective and subjective sleep measures is exactly what shift-work sleep research and model development need.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dataset format itself: per-subject files with sleep metadata (start, end, total time, nap/main flag), minute-level heart-rate time series from the PPG sensor, and sleep-stage sequences with classic or stage labels, plus baseline PSQI scores and demographics. The argument runs on the pairing of continuous heart rate with device-labeled sleep stages across many nights, and on the use of the earlier TILES-2018 recordings as training data with this release as a fixed holdout evaluation set. For the behavioral analyses, the key mechanism is the per-participant sleep-stage transition probability graph, averaged within shift groups and compared with three-way ANOVA controlling for age and sex. For the benchmarks, the machinery is a set of models—a three-layer LSTM, a single-layer TimesNet block, a random forest on hand-crafted sleep features, and zero-shot large-language-model prompts—scored on the same held-out recordings.

What would settle it

A study that runs the same wrist-worn device against gold-standard clinical sleep recordings in both day-shift and night-shift hospital workers and checks whether the device's REM overestimation and sleep-stage misclassification differ statistically between the two shift groups; if they do, the paper's between-group comparisons and stage-label benchmarks would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a ten-week, naturalistic wearable sleep collection from 139 hospital employees—6,012 sleep sessions with continuous heart rate and Fitbit-provided sleep-stage labels, matched with demographics and baseline PSQI scores—can serve as a public benchmark for real-world sleep research and machine learning. When combined with the earlier TILES-2018 dataset, the 349-participant cohort shows statistically significant differences between day- and night-shift workers: night-shift workers report worse PSQI scores, sleep fewer total minutes, have more variable sleep-onset and wake times, and are more likely to transition out of REM into light sleep, indicating more fragmented restorative sleep. Machine learning benchmarks trained on the earlier dataset and evaluated on this holdout show that deep time-series models reach macro-F1 around 0.57 for REM classification and beat both random forests and zero-shot LLMs on PSQI prediction, while a simple random forest best predicts demographics. These results are presented as evidence that the dataset supports both descriptive sleep-behavior science and reproducible model evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the wrist-worn device's automatic sleep-stage labels are accurate enough for these analyses, and specifically that its known tendency to overestimate REM sleep is the same for day-shift and night-shift workers; if the device's errors differ between shifts, the comparisons and model labels are not trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Night-shift hospital workers will show shorter total sleep, higher day-to-day sleep-schedule variability, and lower REM continuity than day-shift workers in this combined cohort.
  • Deep time-series models trained on one cohort of wearable sleep data can transfer to a held-out cohort with macro-F1 around 0.57 for three-class REM classification, making the dataset a usable testbed for sleep-stage modeling.
  • Self-reported PSQI scores can be predicted from sleep features better by deep time-series models than by zero-shot LLMs, suggesting physiological sleep data carries more signal than language-model reasoning about sleep.
  • Demographic attributes, especially age and shift type, are predictable from simple sleep features, meaning sleep physiology is structured enough to carry demographic information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's assumption that Fitbit's systematic sleep-stage errors are shift-invariant could be tested directly by collecting a PSG-validated subsample; if REM bias differs between day and night shifts, the between-group comparisons would need correction.
  • Editorial inference: because nightly self-reported sleep quality was not collected, the PSQI benchmark likely predicts a stable trait-like sleep-quality score rather than night-by-night variation; adding daily EMA labels would create a stronger test of sleep-quality prediction.
  • Editorial inference: the strong shift-prediction performance of the random forest suggests sleep-schedule variability features could serve as a passive digital marker for shift-work disorder risk, though this would need clinical validation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark, a longitudinal wearable sleep dataset collected from 139 hospital employees over 10 weeks using Fitbit Charge 2 devices. The dataset includes continuous heart-rate recordings during sleep, device-provided sleep stages (wake, light, deep, REM), sleep metadata, participant demographics, and baseline PSQI self-reports. The authors combine this new dataset with the earlier TILES-2018 dataset to form a 349-participant "Combined TILES Sleep" dataset, and use it for behavioral analyses comparing day- and night-shift workers (sleep duration, sleep stages, sleep onset/wake-up variability, and sleep-stage transition probabilities). They also present machine learning benchmarks for sleep-stage classification from heart rate, self-reported PSQI prediction, and demographic classification, with models trained on the earlier TILES-2018 data and evaluated on the new benchmark data. The abstract claims over 6,000 unique sleep recordings, while the main analysis section reports 6,012 unique main sleep records and the conclusion states over 5,000.

Significance. If the data release is implemented as described, this is a useful public resource for wearable sleep research in naturalistic settings. Its strengths include the longitudinal 10-week design, a shift-working hospital population that is underrepresented in open sleep datasets, concurrent heart-rate and device sleep-stage data, and the availability of PSQI and demographic metadata. The explicit train/evaluation split between the earlier TILES-2018 data and the new benchmark set is a sound design that avoids circular evaluation, and the paper is transparent about several limitations, including the lack of daily sleep-quality assessments and the absence of noisy-data mitigation experiments. However, the behavioral findings and benchmark labels rely heavily on Fitbit-derived sleep stages, and the paper's assumption that the device's known REM overestimation is consistent across day- and night-shift workers is not demonstrated. The count inconsistency and missing uncertainty quantification further reduce the current reliability of the reported results. With revision, the dataset could become a valuable community benchmark.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VIII-C (with §VI-C, Table V, Fig. 5)] The central behavioral finding that night-shift workers have lower REM minutes and higher REM-to-light transition probabilities rests on the assumption stated in Section VIII-C that the Fitbit Charge 2's systematic errors are 'likely to be consistent across participants.' The cited validation study [30] is not described as reporting shift-stratified bias, and the manuscript's own §VI-B shows night-shift participants have much more variable sleep timing (within-subject SD of sleep onset 5.6 h vs 2.0 h), so daytime and circadian-phase-shifted sleep may plausibly be misclassified differently by the device. Without a shift-stratified validation or a sensitivity analysis under alternative label-noise assumptions, the Table V and Fig. 5 REM results could be device artifacts rather than genuine shift differences. Please either provide such evidence or explicitly relabel these results as exploratory and elevate this issue from 'likely consistent' to a primary limitation.
  2. [Abstract; §V-C; §IX] The number of sleep recordings is reported inconsistently: the abstract says 'over 6,000 unique sleep recordings,' §V-C reports '6,012 unique main sleep records' after selecting participants with more than ten main sleeps, and §IX says 'over 5,000 unique sleep samples.' The released dataset size must be stated unambiguously, including which subset is public (e.g., all main sleeps vs only high-quality entries) and how the counts in the abstract and conclusion relate to the 6,012 figure. This is a basic reproducibility requirement for a dataset paper.
  3. [Tables VI, VII and Fig. 6(b)] All benchmark results are reported as point estimates of macro-F1, ROC-AUC, and accuracy, without confidence intervals or significance tests, even though several subgroup comparisons involve very small sample sizes (e.g., n=28 night-shift participants in Fig. 6(b)). The discussion's statements such as 'TimesNet outperforms SleepNet' for PSQI and demographics, and the age-group difference in sleep-stage F1, are therefore not established. Please add bootstrap confidence intervals or repeated-run variability estimates, and clearly state the participant counts and sleep-recording counts underlying each estimate.
  4. [§V-C, §VII-B] The analysis pipeline uses several hand-chosen thresholds whose influence is not examined: the >10 main-sleep inclusion criterion, the >90% heart-rate coverage definition of 'high quality,' the PSQI binarization at 7, and the age binarization at 40. The PSQI cutoff of 7 is particularly consequential because the standard threshold in the cited reference [19] is greater than 5, not 7; the paper should justify the 7 cutoff or show that results are robust to it. For a benchmark intended for reuse, threshold sensitivity should be reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3(a) caption] The caption states that approximately 70% of participants have 'more than 30 sleep hours,' but the table reports counts of main sleep entries, not sleep hours; please correct the caption or the table.
  2. [§V-C and §VII-A] In §V-C, 'Table 3a' is actually a panel of Fig. 3, and in §VII-A, 'Table 6a' is a panel of Fig. 6; the cross-references should be corrected to the figure panels.
  3. [Table I] The table lists the device as 'Fitbit Charge2' while the text uses 'Fitbit Charge 2'; please standardize the naming.
  4. [§VI-C] The transition analysis is described in the text as comparing 'nurses' (Fig. 5), whereas the rest of the sleep analyses concern all hospital employees; clarify whether the analysis is restricted to nurses and, if so, state the sample sizes.
  5. [Fig. 6(b)] The p-values reported in the Fig. 6(b) table are not linked to any described statistical test or adjustment for multiple comparisons; please state the test, the number of recordings, and whether the p-values are corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the dataset release, held-out benchmark splits, and empirical sleep analyses are self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) the release of a new longitudinal wearable sleep dataset, (2) descriptive and ANOVA-based comparisons of sleep metrics between day- and night-shift hospital workers, and (3) machine-learning benchmarks that train on the previously released TILES-2018 dataset and evaluate on the new TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark cohort. None of these steps reduces to its own input. The benchmark evaluation uses a separate participant cohort (139 new participants versus 210 in the earlier release) under a similar protocol, so the models are not trained and tested on the same recordings; no parameter is fitted to the evaluation set and then re-labeled as a prediction. Citations to the authors' prior TILES-2018 work supply the study protocol, recruitment logistics, and training data; they are not used as the sole justification for the present behavioral conclusions, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those papers to force the analysis. The main validity concern is stated explicitly in Section VIII-C: the Fitbit Charge 2 overestimates REM sleep, and the authors assume the systematic device errors are 'likely to be consistent across participants' so that between-group comparisons remain reliable. That is an empirical assumption about measurement bias and is a correctness/validity risk rather than a circular step; even if shift-invariance of the bias is not established, the day-versus-night differences are observed empirical patterns, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions. The paper also acknowledges the absence of nightly self-reported sleep labels and limited handling of noisy/missing data, neither of which involves circular derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: independent held-out evaluation and empirical analyses are presented, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analyses rest on hand-chosen thresholds (minimum sleep count, heart-rate coverage, PSQI and age cutoffs) and on domain assumptions about Fitbit label accuracy, PSQI stability, cohort comparability, and volunteer representativeness. No formal derivation is present.

free parameters (4)
  • PSQI binarization threshold = 7
    Section VII-B binarizes the global PSQI at >=7 to define poor sleep; the common cutoff cited for the instrument is >=5, and results depend on this hand-chosen threshold.
  • Participant inclusion threshold = more than 10 main sleep entries
    Section V-C keeps only participants with more than 10 main sleep entries for analyses and benchmarks; this excludes 23 of 139 participants and affects all reported statistics.
  • High-quality sleep recording criterion = complete sleep stages and >90% heart rate coverage
    Section V-C defines high-quality entries used in modeling; the 90% threshold is chosen by hand and changes dataset composition.
  • Age binarization threshold = 40 years
    Section VII-C binarizes age as <=40 versus >40 for demographic prediction; this is a hand-chosen benchmark definition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fitbit Charge 2 sleep-stage estimates are accurate enough to support between-group sleep behavior comparisons and to serve as labels for ML benchmarks
    Relied on throughout Sections VI and VII; Section VIII-C acknowledges the device overestimates REM per Stucky et al., and assumes systematic errors are consistent across groups.
  • domain assumption Baseline PSQI reflects the participant's sleep quality over the entire 10-week period
    Section VII-B assigns each sleep recording the baseline PSQI label; no nightly self-report was collected, so label stability across weeks is assumed.
  • domain assumption Volunteer sample of hospital employees represents hospital workers generally
    Recruitment through fliers, staff meetings, and online ads (Section III-B); analyses further exclude low-compliance participants, so generalization is assumed.
  • standard math Standard statistical assumptions of three-way ANOVA (normality, homoscedasticity, independence) hold for PSQI and sleep metrics
    Used in Sections V-B and VI-A/B/C; the paper does not report checks of these assumptions.
  • domain assumption Pooling the two TILES cohorts is valid despite differing unit compositions
    Section V combines 210 earlier and 139 new participants; Figure 2 shows the new cohort over-represents office staff, and pooling assumes this does not confound shift comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark Dataset: A Longitudinal Wearable Sleep Data Set of Hospital Workers for Modeling and Understanding Sleep Behaviors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJISVPPA

@misc{pith2026250703520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark Dataset: A Longitudinal Wearable Sleep Data Set of Hospital Workers for Modeling and Understanding Sleep Behaviors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJISVPPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03520}
}
read the original abstract

Sleep is important for everyday functioning, overall well-being, and quality of life. Recent advances in wearable sensing technology have enabled continuous, noninvasive, and cost-effective monitoring of sleep patterns in real-world natural living settings. Wrist-worn devices, in particular, are capable of tracking sleep patterns using accelerometers and heart rate sensors. To support sleep research in naturalistic environments using wearable sensors, we introduce the TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark dataset, which we make publicly available to the research community. This dataset was collected over a 10-week period from 139 hospital employees and includes over 6,000 unique sleep recordings, alongside self-reported survey data from each participant, which includes sleep quality, stress, and anxiety among other measurements. We present in-depth analyses of sleep patterns by combining the TILES-2018 Sleep Benchmark dataset with a previously released dataset (TILES-2018), which follows a similar study protocol. Our analyses include sleep duration, sleep stages, and sleep diaries. Moreover, we report machine learning benchmarks using this dataset as a testbed for tasks including sleep stage classification, prediction of self-reported sleep quality, and classifying demographics. Overall, this dataset provides a valuable resource for advancing foundational studies in sleep behavior modeling.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Validation of fitbit charge 2 sleep and heart rate estimates against polysomnographic measures in shift workers: Naturalistic study,

    Benjamin Stucky, Ian Clark, Yasmine Azza, Walter Karlen, Peter Acher- mann, Birgit Kleim, and Hans-Peter Landolt, “Validation of fitbit charge 2 sleep and heart rate estimates against polysomnographic measures in shift workers: Naturalistic study,” Journal of medical Internet research , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. e26476, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [19]

    The pittsburgh sleep quality index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research,

    Daniel J Buysse, Charles F Reynolds III, Timothy H Monk, Susan R Berman, and David J Kupfer, “The pittsburgh sleep quality index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research,” Psychiatry research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 193–213, 1989

    work page 1989

  3. [1]

    Sleep, insomnia, and depression,

    Dieter Riemann, Lukas B Krone, Katharina Wulff, and Christoph Nissen, “Sleep, insomnia, and depression,” Neuropsychopharmacology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 74–89, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    Narcolepsy,

    Birgitte R Kornum, Stine Knudsen, Hanna M Ollila, Fabio Pizza, Poul J Jennum, Yves Dauvilliers, and Sebastiaan Overeem, “Narcolepsy,” Nature reviews Disease primers , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Pathophysiology of sleep apnea,

    Jerome A Dempsey, Sigrid C Veasey, Barbara J Morgan, and Christo- pher P O’Donnell, “Pathophysiology of sleep apnea,” Physiological reviews, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 47–112, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    Sleep disorders and sleep deprivation: an unmet public health problem,

    Bruce M Altevogt and Harvey R Colten, “Sleep disorders and sleep deprivation: an unmet public health problem,” 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [5]

    Analysis of a sleep- dependent neuronal feedback loop: the slow-wave microcontinuity of the eeg,

    Bob Kemp, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Bert Tuk, et al., “Analysis of a sleep- dependent neuronal feedback loop: the slow-wave microcontinuity of the eeg,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1185–1194, 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [6]

    You snooze, you win: the phys- ionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2018,

    Mohammad M Ghassemi, Benjamin E Moody, Li-Wei H Lehman, Christopher Song, Qiao Li, Haoqi Sun, Roger G Mark, M Brandon Westover, and Gari D Clifford, “You snooze, you win: the phys- ionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2018,” in 2018 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC). IEEE, 2018, vol. 45, pp. 1–4

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    Racial/ethnic differences in sleep disturbances: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (mesa),

    Xiaoli Chen, Rui Wang, Phyllis Zee, Pamela L Lutsey, et al., “Racial/ethnic differences in sleep disturbances: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (mesa),” Sleep, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 877–888, 2015

    2015

  2. [8]

    Ecsmp: A dataset on emotion, cognition, sleep, and multi-model physiological signals,

    Zhilin Gao, Xingran Cui, Wang Wan, Wenming Zheng, and Zhongze Gu, “Ecsmp: A dataset on emotion, cognition, sleep, and multi-model physiological signals,” Data in Brief , vol. 39, pp. 107660, 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    Addressing wearable sleep tracking inequity: A new dataset and novel methods for a population with sleep disorders,

    Will Ke Wang, Jiamu Yang, Leeor Hershkovich, Hayoung Jeong, Bill Chen, Karnika Singh, Ali R Roghanizad, Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi, Andrew R Spector, and Jessilyn Dunn, “Addressing wearable sleep tracking inequity: A new dataset and novel methods for a population with sleep dis...

    2024

  4. [10]

    Tiles-2018, a longitudinal physiologic and behavioral data set of hospital workers,

    Karel Mundnich, Brandon M Booth, Michelle l’Hommedieu, Tiantian Feng, Benjamin Girault, et al., “Tiles-2018, a longitudinal physiologic and behavioral data set of hospital workers,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 354, 2020

    2018

  5. [11]

    Polysomnography,

    Jessica Vensel Rundo and Ralph Downey III, “Polysomnography,” Handbook of clinical neurology , vol. 160, pp. 381–392, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    A survey on sleep assessment methods,

    Vanessa Ib ´a˜nez, Josep Silva, and Omar Cauli, “A survey on sleep assessment methods,” PeerJ, vol. 6, pp. e4849, 2018

    2018

  7. [13]

    Sleep quality prediction from wearable data using deep learning,

    Aarti Sathyanarayana, Shafiq Joty, Luis Fernandez-Luque, Ferda Ofli, Jaideep Srivastava, Ahmed Elmagarmid, Teresa Arora, Shahrad Taheri, et al., “Sleep quality prediction from wearable data using deep learning,” JMIR mHealth and uHealth , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. e6562, 2016

    2016

  8. [14]

    Tracking depres- sion dynamics in college students using mobile phone and wearable sensing,

    Rui Wang, Weichen Wang, Alex DaSilva, Jeremy F Huckins, William M Kelley, Todd F Heatherton, and Andrew T Campbell, “Tracking depres- sion dynamics in college students using mobile phone and wearable sensing,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquit...

    2018

  9. [15]

    Automating sleep stage classification using wireless, wearable sensors,

    Alexander J Boe, Lori L McGee Koch, Megan K O’Brien, Nicholas Shawen, John A Rogers, Richard L Lieber, Kathryn J Reid, Phyllis C Zee, and Arun Jayaraman, “Automating sleep stage classification using wireless, wearable sensors,” NPJ digital medicine, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 131, 2019

    2019

  10. [16]

    Effect of an internet–delivered cognitive behavioral therapy–based sleep improve- ment app for shift workers at high risk of sleep disorder: Single-arm, nonrandomized trial,

    Asami Ito-Masui, Ryota Sakamoto, Eri Matsuo, Eiji Kawamoto, Eishi Motomura, Hisashi Tanii, Han Yu, Akane Sano, et al., “Effect of an internet–delivered cognitive behavioral therapy–based sleep improve- ment app for shift workers at high risk of sleep disorder: Single-arm, nonr...

    2023

  11. [17]

    A multimodal analysis of physical activity, sleep, and work shift in nurses with wearable sensor data,

    Tiantian Feng, Brandon M Booth, Brooke Baldwin-Rodr ´ıguez, Felipe Osorno, and Shrikanth Narayanan, “A multimodal analysis of physical activity, sleep, and work shift in nurses with wearable sensor data,” Scientific reports, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 8693, 2021

    2021

  12. [18]

    Shift work and the assessment and management of shift work disorder (swd),

    Kenneth P Wright Jr, Richard K Bogan, and James K Wyatt, “Shift work and the assessment and management of shift work disorder (swd),” Sleep medicine reviews, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 41–54, 2013

    2013

  13. [20]

    Long short-term memory,

    Sepp Hochreiter and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  14. [21]

    Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,

    Haixu Wu, Tengge Hu, Yong Liu, Hang Zhou, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long, “Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02186 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Biomistral: A collection of open-source pre-trained large language models for medical domains,

    Yanis Labrak, Adrien Bazoge, Emmanuel Morin, et al., “Biomistral: A collection of open-source pre-trained large language models for medical domains,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10373 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Health-llm: Large language models for health prediction via wearable sensor data,

    Yubin Kim, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park, “Health-llm: Large language models for health prediction via wearable sensor data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06866 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,

    Scott M Lundberg, Gabriel Erion, Hugh Chen, Alex DeGrave, Jordan M Prutkin, Bala Nair, Ronit Katz, Jonathan Himmelfarb, Nisha Bansal, and Su-In Lee, “From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,” Nature machine intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp....

    2020

  18. [25]

    Sleep in normal aging,

    Junxin Li, Michael V Vitiello, and Nalaka S Gooneratne, “Sleep in normal aging,” Sleep medicine clinics , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 161–171, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    The “all of us

    All of Us Research Program Investigators, “The “all of us” research program,” New England Journal of Medicine , vol. 381, no. 7, pp. 668– 676, 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    Nurses’ sleep, work hours, and patient care quality, and safety,

    Amy Witkoski Stimpfel, Farida Fatehi, and Christine Kovner, “Nurses’ sleep, work hours, and patient care quality, and safety,” Sleep Health , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 314–320, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Nurses’ sleep quality, work environment and quality of care in the spanish national health system: observational study among different shifts,

    Teresa G ´omez-Garc´ıa, Mar ´ıa Ruzafa-Mart ´ınez, Carmen Fuentelsaz- Gallego, Juan Antonio Madrid, Maria Angeles Rol, Mar´ıa Jos´e Mart´ınez- Madrid, and Teresa Moreno-Casbas, “Nurses’ sleep quality, work environment and quality of care in the spanish national health system: ...

    2016

  22. [29]

    Poor sleep quality in nurses working or having worked night shifts: a cross-sectional study,

    Qiao Huang, Chong Tian, and Xian-Tao Zeng, “Poor sleep quality in nurses working or having worked night shifts: a cross-sectional study,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 15, pp. 638973, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mitigating data quality challenges in ambulatory wrist-worn wearable monitoring through analytical and practical approaches,

    Jonas Van Der Donckt, Nicolas Vandenbussche, Jeroen Van Der Don- ckt, Stephanie Chen, Marija Stojchevska, Mathias De Brouwer, Bram Steenwinckel, Koen Paemeleire, Femke Ongenae, and Sofie Van Hoecke, “Mitigating data quality challenges in ambulatory wrist-worn wearable monitori...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.