CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298Sleep and related disordersCircadian rhythm and melatoninSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Actigraphy-based sleep estimation in adolescents and adults: a comparison with polysomnography using two scoring algorithms

Open access
Quante, Mirja, Kaplan, Emily R, Cailler, Michael, Rueschman, Michael, Wang, Rui, Weng, Jia, Taveras, Elsie M, Redline, Susan·2018·Nature and Science of Sleep
DOI 10.2147/nss.s151085PMC PMC5779275
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Actigraphy is widely used to estimate sleep–wake time, despite limited information regarding the comparability of different devices and algorithms. We compared estimates of sleep–wake times determined by two wrist actigraphs (GT3X+ versus Actiwatch Spectrum [AWS]) to in-home polysomnography (PSG), using two algorithms (Sadeh and Cole–Kripke) for the GT3X+ recordings. Subjects and methods: Participants included a sample of 35 healthy volunteers (13 school children and 22 adults, 46% male) from Boston, MA, USA. Twenty-two adults wore the GT3X+ and AWS simultaneously for at least five consecutive days and nights. In addition, actigraphy and PSG were concurrently measured in 12 of these adults and another 13 children over a single night. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), epoch-by-epoch comparisons, paired t -tests, and Bland–Altman plots to determine the level of agreement between actigraphy and PSG, and differences between devices and algorithms. Results: Each actigraph showed comparable accuracy (0.81–0.86) for sleep–wake estimation compared to PSG. When analyzing data from the GT3X+, the Cole–Kripke algorithm was more sensitive (0.88–0.96) to detect sleep, but less specific (0.35–0.64) to detect wake than the Sadeh algorithm (sensitivity: 0.82–0.91, specificity: 0.47–0.68). Total sleep time measured using the GT3X+ with both algorithms was similar to that obtained by PSG (ICC=0.64–0.88). In contrast, agreement between the GT3X+ and PSG wake after sleep onset was poor (ICC=0.00–0.10). In adults, the GT3X+ using the Cole–Kripke algorithm provided data comparable to the AWS (mean bias=3.7±19.7 minutes for total sleep time and 8.0±14.2 minutes for wake after sleep onset). Conclusion: The two actigraphs provided comparable and accurate data compared to PSG, although both poorly identified wake episodes (i.e., had low specificity). Use of actigraphy scoring algorithm influenced the mean bias and level of agreement in sleep–wake times estimates. The GT3X+, when analyzed by the Cole–Kripke, but not the Sadeh algorithm, provided comparable data to the AWS. Keywords: validation, actigraphy, polysomnography, scoring algorithm

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/nss.s151085

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–298 of 298

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Quante, M., Kaplan, E. R., Cailler, M., Rueschman, M., Wang, R., Weng, J., Taveras, E. M., & Redline, S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Quante, Mirja
ORCID
Venue
Nature and Science of Sleep
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-01
Volume
Volume 10
Pages
13-20
ISSN
1179-1608 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/nss.s151085
PMC
PMC5779275
OpenAlex
W2783706351
Cited by
298
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8
FWCI
32.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature and Science of Sleep (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Max Kade Foundation
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA155626)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
actigraphy, polysomnography, total sleep time, wake after sleep onset, adolescents, adults, device agreement, home sleep monitoring

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