Increasing depth of sleep corresponds to an increasing gain in the neuronal feedback loops that generate the low-frequency (slow-wave) electroencephalogram (EEG). We derived the maximum-likelihood estimator of the feedback gain and applied it to quantify sleep depth. The estimator computes the fraction (0%-100%) of the current slow wave which continues in the near-future (0.02 s later) EEG. Therefore, this percentage was dubbed slow-wave microcontinuity (SW%). It is not affected by anatomical parameters such as skull thickness, which can considerably bias the commonly used slow-wave power (SWP). In our study, both of the estimators SW% and SWP were monitored throughout two nights in 22 subjects. Each subject took temazepam (a benzodiazepine) on one of the two nights. Both estimators detected the effects of age, temazepam, and time of night on sleep. Females were found to have twice the SWP of males, but no gender effect on SW% was found. This confirms earlier reports that gender affects SWP but not sleep depth. Subjectively assessed differences in sleep quality between the nights were correlated to differences in SW%, not in SWP. These results demonstrate that slow-wave microcontinuity, being based on a physiological model of sleep, reflects sleep depth more closely than SWP does.
To date, the only standard for the classification of sleep-EEG recordings that has found worldwide acceptance are the rules published in 1968 by Rechtschaffen and Kales. Even though several attempts have been made to automate the classification process, so far no method has been published that has proven its validity in a study including a sufficiently large number of controls and patients of all adult age ranges. The present paper describes the development and optimization of an automatic classification system that is based on one central EEG channel, two EOG channels and one chin EMG channel. It adheres to the decision rules for visual scoring as closely as possible and includes a structured quality control procedure by a human expert. The final system (Somnolyzer 24 × 7™) consists of a raw data quality check, a feature extraction algorithm (density and intensity of sleep/wake-related patterns such as sleep spindles, delta waves, SEMs and REMs), a feature matrix plausibility check, a classifier designed as an expert system, a rule-based smoothing procedure for the start and the end of stages REM, and finally a statistical comparison to age- and sex-matched normal healthy controls (Siesta Spot Report™). The expert system considers different prior probabilities of stage changes depending on the preceding sleep stage, the occurrence of a movement arousal and the position of the epoch within the NREM/REM sleep cycles. Moreover, results obtained with and without using the chin EMG signal are combined. The Siesta polysomnographic database (590 recordings in both normal healthy subjects aged 20–95 years and patients suffering from organic or nonorganic sleep disorders) was split into two halves, which were randomly assigned to a training and a validation set, respectively. The final validation revealed an overall epoch-by-epoch agreement of 80% (Cohen’s kappa: 0.72) between the Somnolyzer 24 × 7 and the human expert scoring, as compared with an inter-rater reliability of 77% (Cohen’s kappa: 0.68) between two human experts scoring the same dataset. Two Somnolyzer 24 × 7 analyses (including a structured quality control by two human experts) revealed an inter-rater reliability close to 1 (Cohen’s kappa: 0.991), which confirmed that the variability induced by the quality control procedure, whereby approximately 1% of the epochs (in 9.5% of the recordings) are changed, can definitely be neglected. Thus, the validation study proved the high reliability and validity of the Somnolyzer 24 × 7 and demonstrated its applicability in clinical routine and sleep studies.
SUMMAR Y Interrater variability of sleep stage scorings is a well-known phenomenon. The SIESTA project offered the opportunity to analyse interrater reliability (IRR) between experienced scorers from eight European sleep laboratories within a large sample of patients with different (sleep) disorders: depression, general anxiety disorder with and without non-organic insomnia, Parkinson's disease, period limb movements in sleep and sleep apnoea. The results were based on 196 recordings from 98 patients (73 males: 52.3 ± 12.1 years and 25 females: 49.5 ± 11.9 years) for which two independent expert scorings from two different laboratories were available. Cohen's j was used to evaluate the IRR on the basis of epochs and intraclass correlation was used to analyse the agreement on quantitative sleep parameters. The overall level of agreement when five different stages were distinguished was j ¼ 0.6816 (76.8%), which in terms of j reflects a 'substantial' agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977). For different groups of patients j values varied from 0.6138 (Parkinson's disease) to 0.8176 (generalized anxiety disorder). With regard to (sleep) stages, the IRR was highest for rapid eye movement (REM), followed by Wake, slow-wave sleep (SWS), non-rapid eye movement 2 (NREM2) and NREM1. The results of regression analysis showed that age and sex only had a statistically significant effect on j when the (sleep) stages are considered separately. For NREM2 and SWS a statistically significant decrease of IRR with age has been observed and the IRR for SWS was lower for males than for females. These variations of IRR most probably reflect changes of the sleep electroencephalography (EEG) with age and gender.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.