Naresh M Punjabi1,2, Naima Shifa3, Georg Dorffner4, Susheel Patil1, Grace Pien1, Rashmi N Aurora1. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Mathematics, DePauw University, Greencastle, IN. 4. Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Manual scoring of polysomnograms is a time-consuming and tedious process. To expedite the scoring of polysomnograms, several computerized algorithms for automated scoring have been developed. The overarching goal of this study was to determine the validity of the Somnolyzer system, an automated system for scoring polysomnograms. DESIGN: The analysis sample comprised of 97 sleep studies. Each polysomnogram was manually scored by certified technologists from four sleep laboratories and concurrently subjected to automated scoring by the Somnolyzer system. Agreement between manual and automated scoring was examined. Sleep staging and scoring of disordered breathing events was conducted using the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. SETTING: Clinical sleep laboratories. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A high degree of agreement was noted between manual and automated scoring of the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). The average correlation between the manually scored AHI across the four clinical sites was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.93). Similarly, the average correlation between the manual and Somnolyzer-scored AHI values was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.91-0.96). Thus, interscorer correlation between the manually scored results was no different than that derived from manual and automated scoring. Substantial concordance in the arousal index, total sleep time, and sleep efficiency between manual and automated scoring was also observed. In contrast, differences were noted between manually and automated scored percentages of sleep stages N1, N2, and N3. CONCLUSION: Automated analysis of polysomnograms using the Somnolyzer system provides results that are comparable to manual scoring for commonly used metrics in sleep medicine. Although differences exist between manual versus automated scoring for specific sleep stages, the level of agreement between manual and automated scoring is not significantly different than that between any two human scorers. In light of the burden associated with manual scoring, automated scoring platforms provide a viable complement of tools in the diagnostic armamentarium of sleep medicine.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Manual scoring of polysomnograms is a time-consuming and tedious process. To expedite the scoring of polysomnograms, several computerized algorithms for automated scoring have been developed. The overarching goal of this study was to determine the validity of the Somnolyzer system, an automated system for scoring polysomnograms. DESIGN: The analysis sample comprised of 97 sleep studies. Each polysomnogram was manually scored by certified technologists from four sleep laboratories and concurrently subjected to automated scoring by the Somnolyzer system. Agreement between manual and automated scoring was examined. Sleep staging and scoring of disordered breathing events was conducted using the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. SETTING: Clinical sleep laboratories. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A high degree of agreement was noted between manual and automated scoring of the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). The average correlation between the manually scored AHI across the four clinical sites was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.93). Similarly, the average correlation between the manual and Somnolyzer-scored AHI values was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.91-0.96). Thus, interscorer correlation between the manually scored results was no different than that derived from manual and automated scoring. Substantial concordance in the arousal index, total sleep time, and sleep efficiency between manual and automated scoring was also observed. In contrast, differences were noted between manually and automated scored percentages of sleep stages N1, N2, and N3. CONCLUSION: Automated analysis of polysomnograms using the Somnolyzer system provides results that are comparable to manual scoring for commonly used metrics in sleep medicine. Although differences exist between manual versus automated scoring for specific sleep stages, the level of agreement between manual and automated scoring is not significantly different than that between any two human scorers. In light of the burden associated with manual scoring, automated scoring platforms provide a viable complement of tools in the diagnostic armamentarium of sleep medicine.
Authors: Stephen D Pittman; Mary M MacDonald; Robert B Fogel; Atul Malhotra; Koby Todros; Baruch Levy; Amir B Geva; David P White Journal: Sleep Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Atul Malhotra; Magdy Younes; Samuel T Kuna; Ruth Benca; Clete A Kushida; James Walsh; Alexandra Hanlon; Bethany Staley; Allan I Pack; Grace W Pien Journal: Sleep Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Peter Anderer; Arnaud Moreau; Michael Woertz; Marco Ross; Georg Gruber; Silvia Parapatics; Erna Loretz; Esther Heller; Andrea Schmidt; Marion Boeck; Doris Moser; Gerhard Kloesch; Bernd Saletu; Gerda M Saletu-Zyhlarz; Heidi Danker-Hopfe; Josef Zeitlhofer; Georg Dorffner Journal: Neuropsychobiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Michael H Bonnet; Karl Doghramji; Timothy Roehrs; Edward J Stepanski; Stephen H Sheldon; Arthur S Walters; Merrill Wise; Andrew L Chesson Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Samuel T Kuna; Ruth Benca; Clete A Kushida; James Walsh; Magdy Younes; Bethany Staley; Alexandra Hanlon; Allan I Pack; Grace W Pien; Atul Malhotra Journal: Sleep Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Vladimir Svetnik; Junshui Ma; Keith A Soper; Scott Doran; John J Renger; Steve Deacon; Ken S Koblan Journal: Sleep Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Magdy Younes; Samuel T Kuna; Allan I Pack; James K Walsh; Clete A Kushida; Bethany Staley; Grace W Pien Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Maurice Abou Jaoude; Haoqi Sun; Kyle R Pellerin; Milena Pavlova; Rani A Sarkis; Sydney S Cash; M Brandon Westover; Alice D Lam Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 5.849
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