Punjabi Naresh M, Shifa Naima, Dorffner Georg, Patil Susheel, Pien Grace, Aurora Rashmi N
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Sleep. 2015 Oct 1;38(10):1555-66. doi: 10.5665/sleep.5046.
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.
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.
Clinical sleep laboratories.
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.
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.
多导睡眠图的人工评分是一个耗时且繁琐的过程。为了加快多导睡眠图的评分速度,已开发出多种用于自动评分的计算机算法。本研究的总体目标是确定Somnolyzer系统(一种用于多导睡眠图评分的自动化系统)的有效性。
分析样本包括97项睡眠研究。每项多导睡眠图均由来自四个睡眠实验室的认证技术人员进行人工评分,并同时由Somnolyzer系统进行自动评分。检查人工评分与自动评分之间的一致性。使用2007年美国睡眠医学学会标准进行睡眠分期和呼吸紊乱事件评分。
临床睡眠实验室。
呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)的人工评分与自动评分之间存在高度一致性。四个临床站点人工评分的AHI平均相关性为0.92(95%置信区间:0.90 - 0.93)。同样,人工评分与Somnolyzer评分的AHI值平均相关性为0.93(95%置信区间:0.91 - 0.96)。因此,人工评分结果之间的评分者间相关性与人工评分和自动评分得出的相关性没有差异。人工评分与自动评分在觉醒指数、总睡眠时间和睡眠效率方面也存在高度一致性。相比之下,在睡眠阶段N1、N2和N3的人工评分与自动评分百分比之间存在差异。
使用Somnolyzer系统对多导睡眠图进行自动分析所提供的结果,与睡眠医学中常用指标的人工评分结果相当。虽然特定睡眠阶段的人工评分与自动评分存在差异,但人工评分与自动评分之间的一致性水平与任意两名人工评分者之间的一致性水平没有显著差异。鉴于人工评分的负担,自动评分平台为睡眠医学诊断工具库提供了一种可行的补充工具。