Cited by 284EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesSleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Automated sleep scoring: A review of the latest approaches

Fiorillo, Luigi, Puiatti, Alessandro, Papandrea, Michela, Ratti, Pietro-Luca, Favaro, Paolo, Roth, Corinne, Bargiotas, Panagiotis, Bassetti, Claudio L. +1 more·2019·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Clinical sleep scoring involves a tedious visual review of overnight polysomnograms by a human expert, according to official standards. It could appear then a suitable task for modern artificial intelligence algorithms. Indeed, machine learning algorithms have been applied to sleep scoring for many years. As a result, several software products offer nowadays automated or semi-automated scoring services. However, the vast majority of the sleep physicians do not use them. Very recently, thanks to the increased computational power, deep learning has also been employed with promising results. Machine learning algorithms can undoubtedly reach a high accuracy in specific situations, but there are many difficulties in their introduction in the daily routine. In this review, the latest approaches that are applying deep learning for facilitating and accelerating sleep scoring are thoroughly analyzed and compared with the state of the art methods. Then the obstacles in introducing automated sleep scoring in the clinical practice are examined. Deep learning algorithm capabilities of learning from a highly heterogeneous dataset, in terms both of human data and of scorers, are very promising and should be further investigated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.07.007

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cognitive biases and the lack of diversity in training data contribute to inter- and intra-scoring disagreement, posing limitations.

    “Cognitive biases and the lack of diversity in the training data contribute to inter-and intra-scoring disagreement, posing limitations [63].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fiorillo, L., Puiatti, A., Papandrea, M., Ratti, P.-L., Favaro, P., Roth, C., Bargiotas, P., Bassetti, C. L., & Faraci, F. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (CH)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Martinique (MQ)
Corresponding author
Faraci, Francesca D.
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
48
Pages
101204
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969159609
Cited by
284
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
automated sleep scoring, polysomnography, deep learning, machine learning, clinical implementation barriers, sleep medicine, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Data Analysis, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Sleep Wake Disorders, Sleep Stages, Polysomnography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review