Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring

Open access
Malhotra, Atul, Younes, Magdy, Kuna, Samuel T., Benca, Ruth, Kushida, Clete A., Walsh, James, Hanlon, Alexandra, Staley, Bethany, Pack, Allan I., Pien, Grace W.·2013·Sleep

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Manual scoring of polysomnograms (PSG) is labor intensive and has considerable variance between scorers. Automation of scoring could reduce cost and improve reproducibility. The purpose of this study was to compare a new automated scoring system (YST-Limited, Winnipeg, Canada) with computer-assisted manual scoring. DESIGN: Technical assessment. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventy PSG files were selected at University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and distributed to five US academic sleep centers. Two blinded technologists from each center scored each file. Automatic scoring was performed at Penn by a YST Limited technician using a laptop containing the software. Variables examined were sleep stages, arousals, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) using three methods of identifying hypopneas. Automatic scores were not edited and were compared to the average scores of the 10 technologists. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained for the 70 pairs and compared to across-sites ICCs for manually scored results. ICCs for automatic versus manual scoring were > 0.8 for total sleep time, stage N2, and nonrapid eye movement arousals and > 0.9 for AHI scored by primary and secondary American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. ICCs for other variables were not as high but were comparable to the across-site ICCs for manually scored results. CONCLUSION: The automatic system yielded results that were similar to those obtained by experienced technologists. Very good ICCs were obtained for many primary PSG outcome measures. This automated scoring software, particularly if supplemented with manual editing, may increase laboratory efficiency and standardize PSG scoring results within and across sleep centers.

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 · 10.5665/sleep.2548

Cites

4 of 4 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

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Malhotra, A., Younes, M., Kuna, S. T., Benca, R., Kushida, C. A., Walsh, J., Hanlon, A., Staley, B., Pack, A. I., & Pien, G. W.
Venue
Sleep
Published
2013-04-01
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
573-582
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W2019241323
Cited by
222
References
4
FWCI
10.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5665/sleep.2548
The paper
Malhotra, A., Younes, M., Kuna, S. T., Benca, R., Kushida, C. A., Walsh, J., Hanlon, A., Staley, B., Pack, A. I., & Pien, G. W. (2013). Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring. Sleep. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.2548

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.