Back

Automatic sleep staging in patients with suspected sleep disorders: a comparison of existing methods on portable setups

Gunter, K. M.; Dorier, A.; Bowring, F.; Dennis, G.; Lo, C.; Quinnell, T.; Symmonds, M.; Ratti, P.-L.; Hu, M. T.; Villarroel, M.

2026-07-09 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.06.26357378 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Automatic sleep staging algorithms are increasingly applied in clinical and home-based recordings. However, their performance may degrade when transferred to new montages and clinical populations. This is particularly relevant in reduced-channel portable PSG and in disorders such as REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD), where altered sleep architecture may challenge pretrained models. Objective: To evaluate and compare multiple open-source sleep staging algorithms on a minimal portable PSG setup in controls and patients with and without RBD, and to assess the impact of fine-tuning on clinic-ascertained data. Methods: Six open-source models were applied to 76 subjects recruited from three clinical sleep medicine sites. Performance was assessed using accuracy, F1 scores, and Cohen's kappa, both overall and per sleep stage. Each model was evaluated out-of-the-box and after fine-tuning on clinical data. Results: Out-of-the-box performance varied substantially across models (Cohen's kappa 0.21-0.54). Fine-tuning consistently improved agreement, with the best-performing model (GSSC) reaching Cohen's kappa = 0.58 indicating moderate to good agreement. Performance was highest in controls and lower in patient groups. N3 was the most reliably classified stage across models, whereas N1 remained consistently challenging. REM classification improved after fine-tuning in several architectures but remained model, and subgroup-dependent, particularly in RBD subjects. Conclusion: Fine-tuning substantially mitigates domain shift, updating model parameters to align with new data distributions, when applying automatic sleep staging algorithms to portable clinical recordings. Model architecture influences robustness, with feature-learning approaches demonstrating greater adaptability than fixed-feature models. Despite moderate agreement after adaptation, performance, especially for REM and N1 remains insufficient for fully automated diagnostic use in clinical populations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
11.9%
2
Journal of Sleep Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.3%
4
Sleep Advances
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
5
Sleep
58 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
6
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.2%
7
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.2%
9
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
10
Sleep Medicine
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
12
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
Annals of Neurology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
15
Journal of Biological Rhythms
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Neurophotonics
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
Physiological Measurement
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.0%
21
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%
25
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
26
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
29
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%