Vance Gao1, Fred Turek2, Martha Vitaterna2. 1. Center for Sleep and Circadian Biology, Northwestern University, Department of Neurobiology, 2205 Tech Drive Hogan 2-160, Evanston, IL 60208, United States. Electronic address: v-gao@u.northwestern.edu. 2. Center for Sleep and Circadian Biology, Northwestern University, Department of Neurobiology, 2205 Tech Drive Hogan 2-160, Evanston, IL 60208, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG) recordings are often used in rodents to study sleep architecture and sleep-associated neural activity. These recordings must be scored to designate what sleep/wake state the animal is in at each time point. Manual sleep-scoring is very time-consuming, so machine-learning classifier algorithms have been used to automate scoring. NEW METHOD: Instead of using single classifiers, we implement a multiple classifier system. The multiple classifier is built from six base classifiers: decision tree, k-nearest neighbors, naïve Bayes, support vector machine, neural net, and linear discriminant analysis. Decision tree and k-nearest neighbors were improved into ensemble classifiers by using bagging and random subspace. Confidence scores from each classifier were combined to determine the final classification. Ambiguous epochs can be rejected and left for a human to classify. RESULTS: Support vector machine was the most accurate base classifier, and had error rate of 0.054. The multiple classifier system reduced the error rate to 0.049, which was not significantly different from a second human scorer. When 10% of epochs were rejected, the remaining epochs' error rate dropped to 0.018. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Compared with the most accurate single classifier (support vector machine), the multiple classifier reduced errors by 9.4%. The multiple classifier surpassed the accuracy of a second human scorer after rejecting only 2% of epochs. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple classifier systems are an effective way to increase automated sleep scoring accuracy. Improvements in autoscoring will allow sleep researchers to increase sample sizes and recording lengths, opening new experimental possibilities.
BACKGROUND: Electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG) recordings are often used in rodents to study sleep architecture and sleep-associated neural activity. These recordings must be scored to designate what sleep/wake state the animal is in at each time point. Manual sleep-scoring is very time-consuming, so machine-learning classifier algorithms have been used to automate scoring. NEW METHOD: Instead of using single classifiers, we implement a multiple classifier system. The multiple classifier is built from six base classifiers: decision tree, k-nearest neighbors, naïve Bayes, support vector machine, neural net, and linear discriminant analysis. Decision tree and k-nearest neighbors were improved into ensemble classifiers by using bagging and random subspace. Confidence scores from each classifier were combined to determine the final classification. Ambiguous epochs can be rejected and left for a human to classify. RESULTS: Support vector machine was the most accurate base classifier, and had error rate of 0.054. The multiple classifier system reduced the error rate to 0.049, which was not significantly different from a second human scorer. When 10% of epochs were rejected, the remaining epochs' error rate dropped to 0.018. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Compared with the most accurate single classifier (support vector machine), the multiple classifier reduced errors by 9.4%. The multiple classifier surpassed the accuracy of a second human scorer after rejecting only 2% of epochs. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple classifier systems are an effective way to increase automated sleep scoring accuracy. Improvements in autoscoring will allow sleep researchers to increase sample sizes and recording lengths, opening new experimental possibilities.
Authors: Andrea Sboner; Claudio Eccher; Enrico Blanzieri; Paolo Bauer; Mario Cristofolini; Giuseppe Zumiani; Stefano Forti Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Christopher J Winrow; Deanna L Williams; Andrew Kasarskis; Joshua Millstein; Aaron D Laposky; He S Yang; Karrie Mrazek; Lili Zhou; Joseph R Owens; Daniel Radzicki; Fabian Preuss; Eric E Schadt; Kazuhiro Shimomura; Martha H Vitaterna; Chunsheng Zhang; Kenneth S Koblan; John J Renger; Fred W Turek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ioannis Exarchos; Anna A Rogers; Lauren M Aiani; Robert E Gross; Gari D Clifford; Nigel P Pedersen; Jon T Willie Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Samuel J Bowers; Keith C Summa; Robert S Thompson; Antonio González; Fernando Vargas; Christopher Olker; Peng Jiang; Christopher A Lowry; Pieter C Dorrestein; Rob Knight; Kenneth P Wright; Monika Fleshner; Fred W Turek; Martha H Vitaterna Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 5.152
Authors: Samuel J Bowers; Sophie Lambert; Shannon He; Christopher A Lowry; Monika Fleshner; Kenneth P Wright; Fred W Turek; Martha H Vitaterna Journal: Sleep Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Alan C Rupp; Michelle Ren; Cara M Altimus; Diego C Fernandez; Melissa Richardson; Fred Turek; Samer Hattar; Tiffany M Schmidt Journal: Elife Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Samuel J Bowers; Fernando Vargas; Antonio González; Shannon He; Peng Jiang; Pieter C Dorrestein; Rob Knight; Kenneth P Wright; Christopher A Lowry; Monika Fleshner; Martha H Vitaterna; Fred W Turek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey S Burgdorf; Martha H Vitaterna; Christopher J Olker; Eun Joo Song; Edward P Christian; Laurits Sørensen; Fred W Turek; Torsten M Madsen; M Amin Khan; Roger A Kroes; Joseph R Moskal Journal: Sleep Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.849