Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Multi-task deep-learning for sleep event detection and stage classification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One CNN-LSTM model can mark sleep stages, arousals, and respiratory events in a single forward pass.

desk verdict Solid proof-of-concept for single-pass staging plus arousal and respiratory detection, but the one-event-per-class encoding means the 'detection' claim is narrower than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09519 v1 pith:WNAGEPZQ submitted 2025-01-16 eess.SP cs.LG

Adriana Anido-Alonso , Diego Alvarez-Estevez This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.LG
keywords sleepstagingEEGarousaldetectionrespiratoryeventmulti-tasklearningsingle-shotpolysomnographyCNN-LSTMtime-serieslocalization
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 sets out to show that one neural network can carry the full annotation workload of an overnight sleep study in a single pass: assigning a sleep stage to every 30-second epoch and, in the same forward pass, locating and classifying EEG arousals and apneas or hypopneas. The authors reformulate single-shot object detection from computer vision into one-dimensional time series so that each window emits 'bounding windows' with event confidence, position, width, and class. On a held-out part of the training database the method reaches kappa values of 0.82 for sleep staging, 0.61 for arousal detection, and 0.58 for respiratory events; on an unseen external database the same models drop to average kappas of 0.45, 0.23, and 0.21. The contribution is the demonstration that joint detection in one pass is feasible, and that multi-task training, channel montage, and loss design each measurably change what the network learns.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the transfer of grid-cell object detection from two dimensions to one dimension: each time slice plays the role of a grid cell, and 'bounding windows' play the role of bounding boxes, each carrying a confidence score, a temporal center, a width, and a class vector. With one 30-second slice per input and three dedicated bounding windows, the network assigns one window to sleep stages (five class probabilities, no location), one to EEG arousals (presence probability merged with confidence), and one to respiratory events (full confidence-center-width-class vector). The CNN-LSTM structure supplies the features, and a three-component loss lets classification and localization be learned together.

What would settle it

Run the trained model on recordings where expert scorers place two or more events of the same class inside one 30-second window and count how many of the events are recovered; systematic loss of the shorter events would show that the centroid-based single-annotation data-generation rule, not the network, is what limits dense-event detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the one-dimensional reformulation of single-shot object detection works for sleep analysis: given a 30-second window of several physiological channels padded with 60 seconds of context on each side, a CNN-LSTM returns a 13-component vector encoding the five sleep-stage probabilities, an EEG-arousal presence with its temporal center and width, and a respiratory-event presence with its class, center, and width. The network is trained with a three-part loss so that classification and localization errors are minimized together, and at inference overlapping predictions are merged by non-maximal suppression along time while clinical post-processing rules are applied. The local-test numbers are offered as the evidence for feasibility, and the external-test drop is interpreted as dataset shift rather than as a failure of the one-pass formulation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach assumes that one annotation per event class per 30-second window is enough: when two arousals or two respiratory events share a window, the shorter is silently discarded, so the model is never trained or tested on the dense-event patterns a sleep detector actually needs to report.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A full sleep-study annotation could be reduced to one automated forward pass per epoch, producing the hypnogram and event annotations together instead of through separate specialist algorithms.
  • Joint training helps: adding arousal or respiratory targets to the staging task improves or maintains sleep-stage kappa compared with staging alone, consistent with multi-task learning sharing features across tasks.
  • Input montage matters asymmetrically: adding saturation and airflow channels raises respiratory-event kappa on local data, while EEG arousal kappa falls as channels are added, suggesting a capacity trade-off inside the fixed model.
  • The substantial external-data drop means that local test results overstate what a sleep laboratory should expect; models trained on one scoring population will need retraining, more heterogeneous data, or decentralized learning before they generalize.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension of the paper's own parameter space is to raise the number of bounding windows per class so that two or more same-class events inside one 30-second window can be reported; the current one-annotation-per-window rule prevents that.
  • The same bounding-window encoding could be pointed at other episodic time-series annotations, such as limb movements, seizures, or coughs, provided each event type gets a dedicated bounding window; nothing in the reformulation is sleep-specific.
  • Because the external evaluation was performed on only five recordings originally selected for a leg-movement scoring study, the reported external kappas should be read as a pilot estimate of generalization rather than a stable population-level number; a larger multi-center external set would tighten that estimate.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-task deep-learning method, inspired by YOLO object detection, for simultaneous detection of sleep stages, EEG arousals, and respiratory events (apneas and hypopneas) from polysomnographic recordings in a single pass. The method reformulates 2D bounding boxes as 1D bounding windows on a multi-channel time series, with an output tensor per 30-s window containing stage probabilities, an arousal presence/width/center, and respiratory event presence/class/width/center. Experiments use SHHS for training/local evaluation and HMC-ISA for external evaluation, across different channel montages (D=4,6,8) and task assemblies. Local results show average kappa of 0.82 for staging, 0.61 for arousals, and 0.58 for respiratory events, with substantial degradation on the external set (0.45, 0.23, 0.21). The authors conclude that the method supports flexible input configurations and multi-event detection in one pass, with future work on sub-windowing and additional events.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, the paper offers a practical contribution to automated PSG analysis by combining several annotation tasks in one architecture, avoiding the need to concatenate separate algorithms. The release of source code and the use of two independent datasets (local and external) are strengths that support reproducibility and initial generalization assessment. However, the central claim about 'location and classification of event occurrences' is constrained by the output encoding, which limits each 30-s window to at most one arousal and one respiratory event per class. The reported metrics appear to be epoch-level presence/absence scores rather than per-event detection rates, so the true event-level performance remains unclear. The small external test set (5 recordings) also limits the generality of the external validation results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, §3.1] The output encoding with S=1 and B=3, where each bounding window is permanently assigned to one event class, can represent at most one EEG arousal and one respiratory event per 30-s window. This is confirmed in §3.1, which states that 'we only consider the occurrence of one annotation per class on each sub-interval' and that if two same-class annotations fall in the same sub-interval, the shorter one is discarded. Because AASM arousals are at least 3 s and apneas/hypopneas at least 10 s, multiple same-class events can legitimately occur within one 30-s epoch (especially in patients with frequent respiratory events), so the training labels actively delete clinically relevant events. The reported kappa and F1 values are therefore epoch-level presence/absence scores, not per-event detection rates, and the location regression (x,w) is evaluated only on the single retained event. The abstract's claim of 'location and classification of event occurrences in one pass' is broader than what this encoding can represent. The authors should either re-scope the central claim to epoch-level multi-event classification plus localization of at most one event per class per window, or add sub-windowing experiments (e.g., S>1) to support event-level detection.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The numerical comparisons between configurations (e.g., arousal kappa dropping from 0.70 at D=4 to 0.47 at D=8, or respiratory kappa rising from 0.48 to 0.65 with added channels) are presented as performance trends without any confidence intervals or statistical significance tests. Given that the local evaluation uses a single 80/20 split and the external set has only 5 recordings, these differences may not be reliable. The paper should include at least bootstrap confidence intervals across recordings (or per-recording scores) for the key metrics, or the claims of channel-montage effects should be softened accordingly.
  3. [§2.5 and Table 3] The external test set HMC-ISA consists of only 5 PSG recordings that were originally selected for a leg-movement scoring study, not for evaluating arousal or respiratory event detection. Using this set as the sole evidence of 'true-generalization effects' is problematic: the small sample size and the task mismatch make it difficult to separate domain shift from sampling variability. The conclusion that external performance degrades significantly (average kappa 0.45/0.23/0.21) is qualitatively important, but the authors should explicitly acknowledge that a 5-recording set is not a representative generalization test and avoid strong quantitative claims about external robustness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4] The notation 'M = N ± δ' is unclear because the input tensor size is later given as D × (2δ + N); the manuscript should state that the context margin adds δ samples on each side, so the input length is N + 2δ.
  2. [§2.3] The output vector notation mixes subscripts inconsistently (e.g., c_s, c_a, c_r, p_r, x_r, w_r); a table summarizing the 13 components and their meaning would improve readability.
  3. [Table 1] Decimal commas are used in tables (e.g., '0,78') while the text uses decimal points; please harmonize the format for consistency.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The figures are referenced but not included in the submitted text; the paper should ensure the figures display clearly, with axis labels and legends for the different event-specific MAE curves.
  5. [§5] The discussion mentions 'significant improvement' and 'significant degradation' in several places without statistical testing; please replace such language with descriptive statements such as 'large observed difference' unless significance tests are provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a held-out empirical evaluation whose predictions are tested on unseen local and external data, and its self-citations are incidental rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation; its central claims are evaluated empirically. The model is trained on a fixed SHHS training partition, validated on a held-out VAL set, and then assessed on a local SHHS test partition and on the external HMC-ISA database, so the reported kappa, F1, and MAE values are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The output encoding in Section 2.3 and the label construction in Section 3.1 are explicit design choices made before testing, and the S=1, one-annotation-per-class-per-sub-interval limitation is acknowledged as future work rather than used to force the results. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (refs. [7], [30], [31]) are used for dataset description, for adapting a previous sleep-staging architecture, and for a practical note about batch normalization; they do not supply an unverified uniqueness theorem or a result equivalent to the target claim. The comparison against YOLO is only motivational framing. Overall, no circular step could be identified: the evaluation is self-contained against independent test data and the limitations are explicitly stated rather than hidden by construction.

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

The paper contributes an empirical method rather than a formal derivation. The central claim rests on several hand-chosen design parameters (window size, number of bounding windows, threshold) and on domain assumptions about AASM labels and event density. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Analysis window N = 30 s
    Matches clinical hypnogram epochs; determines the granularity of event-centroid assignment and is fixed by design rather than tuned.
  • Context margin delta = 60 s each side
    Chosen to provide extra temporal context around each 30-s window; no ablation or tuning is reported.
  • Number of bounding windows B = 3
    One bounding window per target event type (stages, arousals, respiratory); this structural choice couples detection capacity to task count.
  • Sigmoid presence threshold = 0.5
    Used to binarize event presence at inference; no threshold sweep is performed, and the value may affect precision-recall tradeoffs.
  • NMS overlap threshold lambda = not specified
    Mentioned in Section 2.2 for non-maximal suppression, but the actual value is never reported, leaving event-merging behavior unspecified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AASM rules define the ground truth for sleep stages, arousals, and respiratory events.
    Labels from SHHS and HMC-ISA follow AASM scoring criteria; any inconsistencies or errors in the clinical annotations propagate directly into the reported metrics.
  • ad hoc to paper The YOLO grid-cell and bounding-window formulation transfers from 2D images to 1D time series.
    The paper redefines bounding boxes as temporal windows without a formal justification or an empirical comparison against alternative detection heads (e.g., anchor-free or sequence labeling).
  • domain assumption Each 30-second sub-interval contains at most one event of a given class.
    Section 3.1 assigns the annotation whose centroid falls in the sub-interval, discarding additional same-class events; this can remove clinically relevant information in dense event periods.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal weighting of the three loss components is appropriate.
    The authors deliberately avoid a weighting mechanism, but Table 1 only compares the combined loss against MSE-only, not against different weightings, so the equal-weight choice is not validated.
  • domain assumption Input standardization to zero mean and unit variance, with no artifact removal, is sufficient.
    The method resamples to 100 Hz and normalizes per channel, but does not filter or reject artifacts; the impact of noise on detection is not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-task deep-learning for sleep event detection and stage classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNAGEPZQ

@misc{pith2026250109519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-task deep-learning for sleep event detection and stage classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNAGEPZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09519}
}
read the original abstract

Polysomnographic sleep analysis is the standard clinical method to accurately diagnose and treat sleep disorders. It is an intricate process which involves the manual identification, classification, and location of multiple sleep event patterns. This is complex, for which identification of different types of events involves focusing on different subsets of signals, resulting on an iterative time-consuming process entailing several visual analysis passes. In this paper we propose a multi-task deep-learning approach for the simultaneous detection of sleep events and hypnogram construction in one single pass. Taking as reference state-of-the-art methodology for object-detection in the field of Computer Vision, we reformulate the problem for the analysis of multi-variate time sequences, and more specifically for pattern detection in the sleep analysis scenario. We investigate the performance of the resulting method in identifying different assembly combinations of EEG arousals, respiratory events (apneas and hypopneas) and sleep stages, also considering different input signal montage configurations. Furthermore, we evaluate our approach using two independent datasets, assessing true-generalization effects involving local and external validation scenarios. Based on our results, we analyze and discuss our method's capabilities and its potential wide-range applicability across different settings and datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intersection over union (IOU). by the individual box confidence scores at test time: cj ∗ pi = P r(Classj |Object) ∗ P r(Object) ∗ IOUtruth pred = P r(Classj ) ∗ IOUtruth pred , resulting in class-specific confidence scores for each bounding box. In general, notice that the final length of the grid cell vector is determined at design time by fixing the number B of pre-defined bounding boxes, and the number of target… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Testing performance in the source database (SHHS) in terms of MAE. For each input channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Testing performance in the external database (HMC-ISA) in terms of MAE. For each combination of input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Short-and long-term health consequences of sleep disruption,

    G. Medic, M. Wille, and M. E. Hemels, “Short-and long-term health consequences of sleep disruption,” Nature and science of sleep , pp. 151–161, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Sleep deprivation and its association with diseases-a review,

    S. C. Liew and T. Aung, “Sleep deprivation and its association with diseases-a review,”Sleep medicine, vol. 77, pp. 192–204, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The aasm manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: rules, terminology and technical specifications (version 3),

    M. Troester, S. Quan, R. Berry, D. Plante, A. Abreu, M. Alzoubaidi, A. Bandyopadhyay, L. D. Rosso, et al., “The aasm manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: rules, terminology and technical specifications (version 3),” Darien, IL: American Academy of Sleep Medicine , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Staging sleep in polysomnograms: analysis of inter-scorer variability,

    M. Younes, J. Raneri, and P. Hanly, “Staging sleep in polysomnograms: analysis of inter-scorer variability,” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 885–894, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Cesari, A

    M. Cesari, A. Stefani, T. Penzel, A. Ibrahim, H. Hackner, A. Heidbreder, A. Szentkirályi, B. Stubbe, H. Völzke, K. Berger, and B. Högl, “Interrater sleep stage scoring reliability between manual scoring from two european sleep centers and automatic scoring performed by the artificial intelligence-based stanford-STAGES algorithm,” Journal of Clinical Sleep...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Agreement in the scoring of respiratory events and sleep among international sleep centers,

    U. J. Magalang, N.-H. Chen, P. A. Cistulli, A. C. Fedson, T. Gíslason, D. Hillman, T. Penzel, R. Tamisier, S. Tufik, G. Phillips, et al., “Agreement in the scoring of respiratory events and sleep among international sleep centers,” Sleep, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 591–596, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Computer-assisted analysis of polysomnographic recordings improves inter-scorer associated agreement and scoring times,

    D. Alvarez-Estevez and R. M. Rijsman, “Computer-assisted analysis of polysomnographic recordings improves inter-scorer associated agreement and scoring times,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, p. e0275530, Sept. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Scoring sleep with artificial intelligence enables quantification of sleep stage ambiguity: hypnodensity based on multiple expert scorers and auto-scoring,

    J. P. Bakker, M. Ross, A. Cerny, R. Vasko, E. Shaw, S. Kuna, U. J. Magalang, N. M. Punjabi, and P. Anderer, “Scoring sleep with artificial intelligence enables quantification of sleep stage ambiguity: hypnodensity based on multiple expert scorers and auto-scoring,” Sleep, p. zsac154, July 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Rethinking Sleep Analysis: Comment on the AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events,

    H. Schulz, “Rethinking Sleep Analysis: Comment on the AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events,” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine , vol. 04, pp. 99–103, Apr. 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Automatic sleep staging of EEG signals: recent development, challenges, and future directions,

    H. Phan and K. Mikkelsen, “Automatic sleep staging of EEG signals: recent development, challenges, and future directions,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 43, p. 04TR01, Apr. 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Automated sleep scoring: A review of the latest approaches,

    L. Fiorillo, A. Puiatti, M. Papandrea, P.-L. Ratti, P. Favaro, C. Roth, P. Bargiotas, C. L. Bassetti, and F. D. Faraci, “Automated sleep scoring: A review of the latest approaches,”Sleep Medicine Reviews, vol. 48, p. 101204, Dec. 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome automatic detection and subtype classification method based on lstm-cnn,

    H. Yu, D. Liu, J. Zhao, Z. Chen, C. Gou, X. Huang, J. Sun, and X. Zhao, “A sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome automatic detection and subtype classification method based on lstm-cnn,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 71, p. 103240, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Detection of sleep apnea using deep neural networks and single-lead ecg signals,

    A. Zarei, H. Beheshti, and B. M. Asl, “Detection of sleep apnea using deep neural networks and single-lead ecg signals,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 71, p. 103125, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Detection of obstructive sleep apnea from single-channel ecg signals using a cnn-transformer architecture,

    H. Liu, S. Cui, X. Zhao, and F. Cong, “Detection of obstructive sleep apnea from single-channel ecg signals using a cnn-transformer architecture,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 82, p. 104581, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Automatic detection of cortical arousals in sleep and their contribution to daytime sleepiness,

    A. Brink-Kjaer, A. N. Olesen, P. E. Peppard, K. L. Stone, P. Jennum, E. Mignot, and H. B. Sorensen, “Automatic detection of cortical arousals in sleep and their contribution to daytime sleepiness,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 1187–1203, 2020. 10 Sleep events...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Deep convolutional architecture-based hybrid learning for sleep arousal events detection through single-lead eeg signals,

    A. Foroughi, F. Farokhi, F. N. Rahatabad, and A. Kashaninia, “Deep convolutional architecture-based hybrid learning for sleep arousal events detection through single-lead eeg signals,”Brain and Behavior, vol. 13, no. 6, p. e3028, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Detection of k-complexes in eeg signals using deep transfer learning and yolov3,

    N. Khasawneh, M. Fraiwan, and L. Fraiwan, “Detection of k-complexes in eeg signals using deep transfer learning and yolov3,” Cluster Computing, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 3985–3995, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Expert-level sleep scoring with deep neural networks,

    S. Biswal, H. Sun, B. Goparaju, M. B. Westover, J. Sun, and M. T. Bianchi, “Expert-level sleep scoring with deep neural networks,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1643–1650, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Dosed: A deep learning approach to detect multiple sleep micro-events in eeg signal,

    S. Chambon, V . Thorey, P. J. Arnal, E. Mignot, and A. Gramfort, “Dosed: A deep learning approach to detect multiple sleep micro-events in eeg signal,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 321, pp. 64–78, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    A multi-task deep learning algorithm for sleep stage scoring and sleep arousal detection,

    J. Huo, H. Li, J. Roveda, S. F. Quan, and A. Li, “A multi-task deep learning algorithm for sleep stage scoring and sleep arousal detection,” Authorea Preprints, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Multi-task learning for arousal and sleep stage detection using fully convolutional networks,

    H. Zan and A. Yildiz, “Multi-task learning for arousal and sleep stage detection using fully convolutional networks,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 20, no. 5, p. 056034, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Msleepnet: A semi-supervision based multi-view hybrid neural network for simultaneous sleep arousal and sleep stage detection,

    H. Liu, H. Zhang, B. Li, X. Yu, Y . Zhang, and T. Penzel, “Msleepnet: A semi-supervision based multi-view hybrid neural network for simultaneous sleep arousal and sleep stage detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A deep transfer learning approach for sleep stage classification and sleep apnea detection using wrist-worn consumer sleep technologies,

    M. Olsen, J. M. Zeitzer, R. N. Richardson, V . H. Musgrave, H. B. Sørensen, E. Mignot, and P. J. Jennum, “A deep transfer learning approach for sleep stage classification and sleep apnea detection using wrist-worn consumer sleep technologies,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical E...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Msed: A multi-modal sleep event detection model for clinical sleep analysis,

    A. N. Zahid, P. Jennum, E. Mignot, and H. B. Sorensen, “Msed: A multi-modal sleep event detection model for clinical sleep analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Challenges of Applying Automated Polysomnography Scoring at Scale,

    D. Alvarez-Estevez, “Challenges of Applying Automated Polysomnography Scoring at Scale,”Sleep Medicine Clinics, vol. 18, pp. 277–292, Sept. 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection,” May 2016. arXiv:1506.02640 [cs]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A Comprehensive Review of YOLO Architectures in Computer Vision: From YOLOv1 to YOLOv8 and YOLO-NAS,

    J. Terven and D. Cordova-Esparza, “A Comprehensive Review of YOLO Architectures in Computer Vision: From YOLOv1 to YOLOv8 and YOLO-NAS,”Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , vol. 5, pp. 1680–1716, Nov. 2023. arXiv:2304.00501 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger,” Dec. 2016. arXiv:1612.08242 [cs]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement,” Apr. 2018. arXiv:1804.02767 [cs]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Inter-database validation of a deep learning approach for automatic sleep scoring,

    D. Alvarez-Estevez and R. M. Rijsman, “Inter-database validation of a deep learning approach for automatic sleep scoring,” PLOS ONE, vol. 16, p. e0256111, Aug. 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Decentralized data-privacy preserving deep-learning approaches for enhancing inter-database generalization in automatic sleep staging,

    A. Anido-Alonso and D. Alvarez-Estevez, “Decentralized data-privacy preserving deep-learning approaches for enhancing inter-database generalization in automatic sleep staging,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

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

    S. F. Quan, B. V . Howard, C. Iber, J. P. Kiley, F. J. Nieto, G. T. O’Connor, D. M. Rapoport, S. Redline, J. Robbins, J. M. Samet, and P. W. Wahl, “The sleep heart health study: Design, rationale, and methods,” Sleep, vol. 20, pp. 1077–1085, 12 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    The national sleep research resource: towards a sleep data commons,

    G.-Q. Zhang, L. Cui, R. Mueller, S. Tao, M. Kim, M. Rueschman, S. Mariani, D. Mobley, and S. Redline, “The national sleep research resource: towards a sleep data commons,” 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    adrania/sleep-events-detection: v0.1.1,

    A. Anido-Alonso and D. Alvarez-Estevez, “adrania/sleep-events-detection: v0.1.1,” Dec. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    A survey on multi-task learning,

    Y . Zhang and Q. Yang, “A survey on multi-task learning,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 5586–5609, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Automatic sleep stage classification with deep residual networks in a mixed-cohort setting,

    A. N. Olesen, P. Jørgen Jennum, E. Mignot, and H. B. D. Sorensen, “Automatic sleep stage classification with deep residual networks in a mixed-cohort setting,” Sleep, vol. 44, p. zsaa161, Jan. 2021. 11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.