Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring
Performance of an Automated Polysomnography Scoring System Versus Computer-Assisted Manual Scoring
复制标题
DOI：
10.5665/sleep.2548
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.6
通讯作者：
Pien, Grace W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Malhotra, Atul;Younes, Magdy;Pien, Grace W.
研究目的：多导睡眠图（PSG）的手动评分是劳动密集型的，并且评分者之间存在相当大的差异。评分的自动化可以降低成本并提高重现性。本研究的目的是比较一种新的自动评分系统（YST有限公司，温尼伯，加拿大）与计算机辅助的手动scoring.Design：技术评估。设置：五个学术医疗中心。参与者：N/A。干预措施：N/A。测量和结果：七十PSG文件被选择在宾夕法尼亚大学（Penn），并分发到五个美国学术睡眠中心。每个中心的两名设盲技术人员对每个文件进行评分。在Penn由YST Limited技术人员使用包含软件的笔记本电脑进行自动评分。研究的变量包括睡眠阶段、觉醒次数和呼吸暂停低通气指数（AHI），使用三种识别呼吸不足的方法。自动评分未进行编辑，并与10名技术人员的平均评分进行比较。获得70对的组内相关系数（ICC），并与跨中心ICC进行手动评分结果的比较。根据美国睡眠医学学会的初级和次级标准，自动与手动评分的ICC在总睡眠时间、N2阶段和非快速眼动觉醒方面> 0.8，AHI评分方面> 0.9。ICCs的其他变量不高，但可比的跨网站ICCs手动评分result.Conclusion：自动系统产生的结果是由经验丰富的技术人员所获得的类似。许多主要PSG结局指标均获得了非常好的ICC。这种自动评分软件，特别是如果辅以手动编辑，可以提高实验室效率，并使睡眠中心内和睡眠中心之间的PSG评分结果标准化。
Study Objectives: Manual scoring of polysomnograms (PSG) is labor intensive and has considerable variance between scorers. Automation of scoring could reduce cost and improve reproducibility. The purpose of this study was to compare a new automated scoring system (YST-Limited, Winnipeg, Canada) with computer-assisted manual scoring.Design: Technical assessment.Setting: Five academic medical centers.Participants: N/A.Interventions: N/A.Measurements and Results: Seventy PSG files were selected at University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and distributed to five US academic sleep centers. Two blinded technologists from each center scored each file. Automatic scoring was performed at Penn by a YST Limited technician using a laptop containing the software. Variables examined were sleep stages, arousals, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) using three methods of identifying hypopneas. Automatic scores were not edited and were compared to the average scores of the 10 technologists. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained for the 70 pairs and compared to across-sites ICCs for manually scored results. ICCs for automatic versus manual scoring were > 0.8 for total sleep time, stage N2, and nonrapid eye movement arousals and > 0.9 for AHI scored by primary and secondary American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. ICCs for other variables were not as high but were comparable to the across-site ICCs for manually scored results.Conclusion: The automatic system yielded results that were similar to those obtained by experienced technologists. Very good ICCs were obtained for many primary PSG outcome measures. This automated scoring software, particularly if supplemented with manual editing, may increase laboratory efficiency and standardize PSG scoring results within and across sleep centers.