Raffaele Ferri1, Jean-François Gagnon2, Ronald B Postuma3, Francesco Rundo4, Jacques Y Montplaisir5. 1. Sleep Research Centre, Department of Neurology I.C., Oasi Institute (IRCCS), Troina, Italy. Electronic address: rferri@oasi.en.it. 2. Centre d'Études Avancées en Médecine du Sommeil, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Centre d'Études Avancées en Médecine du Sommeil, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Neurology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 4. Sleep Research Centre, Department of Neurology I.C., Oasi Institute (IRCCS), Troina, Italy. 5. Centre d'Études Avancées en Médecine du Sommeil, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different methods, one visual and the other automatic, for the quantification of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep without atonia (RSWA) in the diagnosis of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). METHODS: Seventy-four RBD patients (mean age, 62.14±9.67 years) and 75 normal controls (mean age, 61.04±12.13 years) underwent one night video-polysomnographic recording. The chin electromyogram (EMG) during REM sleep was analyzed by means of a previously published visual method quantifying the percentage of 30s epochs scored as tonic (abnormal, > or =30%) and that of 2s mini-epochs containing phasic EMG events (abnormal, > or =15%). For the computer quantitative analysis we used the automatic scoring algorithm known as the atonia index (abnormal, <0.8). The percentage correct classification, sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen kappa were calculated. RESULTS: The atonia index correctly classified 82.6% of subjects, similar to the percentage of correct classifications with individual components of the visual analysis (83.2% each for tonic and phasic), and the combined visual parameters (85.9%). The sensitivity and specificity of automatic analysis (84% and 81%) was similar to the combined visual analysis (89% and 83%). The correlation coefficient between the automatic atonia index and the percentage of visual tonic EMG was high (r = -0.886, P<0.00001), with moderately high correlation with the percentage of phasic EMG (r = -0.690, P<0.00001). The agreement between atonia index and the visual parameters (individual or combined) was approximately 85% with Cohen's kappa, ranging from 0.638 to 0.693. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity, specificity, and correct classifications were high with both methods. Moreover, there was general agreement between methods, with Cohen's kappa values in the 'good' range. Given the considerable practical advantages of automatic quantification of REM atonia, automatic quantification may be a useful alternative to visual scoring methods in otherwise uncomplicated polysomnograms.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different methods, one visual and the other automatic, for the quantification of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep without atonia (RSWA) in the diagnosis of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). METHODS: Seventy-four RBD patients (mean age, 62.14±9.67 years) and 75 normal controls (mean age, 61.04±12.13 years) underwent one night video-polysomnographic recording. The chin electromyogram (EMG) during REM sleep was analyzed by means of a previously published visual method quantifying the percentage of 30s epochs scored as tonic (abnormal, > or =30%) and that of 2s mini-epochs containing phasic EMG events (abnormal, > or =15%). For the computer quantitative analysis we used the automatic scoring algorithm known as the atonia index (abnormal, <0.8). The percentage correct classification, sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen kappa were calculated. RESULTS: The atonia index correctly classified 82.6% of subjects, similar to the percentage of correct classifications with individual components of the visual analysis (83.2% each for tonic and phasic), and the combined visual parameters (85.9%). The sensitivity and specificity of automatic analysis (84% and 81%) was similar to the combined visual analysis (89% and 83%). The correlation coefficient between the automatic atonia index and the percentage of visual tonic EMG was high (r = -0.886, P<0.00001), with moderately high correlation with the percentage of phasic EMG (r = -0.690, P<0.00001). The agreement between atonia index and the visual parameters (individual or combined) was approximately 85% with Cohen's kappa, ranging from 0.638 to 0.693. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity, specificity, and correct classifications were high with both methods. Moreover, there was general agreement between methods, with Cohen's kappa values in the 'good' range. Given the considerable practical advantages of automatic quantification of REM atonia, automatic quantification may be a useful alternative to visual scoring methods in otherwise uncomplicated polysomnograms.
Authors: Stuart J McCarter; Erik K St Louis; David J Sandness; Ethan J Duwell; Paul C Timm; Bradley F Boeve; Michael H Silber Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Cathy A Goldstein; Richard B Berry; David T Kent; David A Kristo; Azizi A Seixas; Susan Redline; M Brandon Westover Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: John C Feemster; Youngsin Jung; Paul C Timm; Sarah M Westerland; Thomas R Gossard; Luke N Teigen; Lauren A Buchal; Elena F D Cattaneo; Charlotte A Imlach; Stuart J Mccarter; Kevin L Smith; Bradley F Boeve; Michael H Silber; Erik K St Louis Journal: Sleep Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Yves Dauvilliers; Carlos H Schenck; Ronald B Postuma; Alex Iranzo; Pierre-Herve Luppi; Giuseppe Plazzi; Jacques Montplaisir; Bradley Boeve Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Daniel J Levendowski; Erik K St Louis; Luigi Ferini Strambi; Andrea Galbiati; Philip Westbrook; Chris Berka Journal: Nat Sci Sleep Date: 2018-12-06
Authors: Mitchell G Miglis; Charles H Adler; Elena Antelmi; Dario Arnaldi; Luca Baldelli; Bradley F Boeve; Matteo Cesari; Irene Dall'Antonia; Nico J Diederich; Kathrin Doppler; Petr Dušek; Raffaele Ferri; Jean-François Gagnon; Ziv Gan-Or; Wiebke Hermann; Birgit Högl; Michele T Hu; Alex Iranzo; Annette Janzen; Anastasia Kuzkina; Jee-Young Lee; Klaus L Leenders; Simon J G Lewis; Claudio Liguori; Jun Liu; Christine Lo; Kaylena A Ehgoetz Martens; Jiri Nepozitek; Giuseppe Plazzi; Federica Provini; Monica Puligheddu; Michal Rolinski; Jan Rusz; Ambra Stefani; Rebekah L S Summers; Dallah Yoo; Jennifer Zitser; Wolfgang H Oertel Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 44.182