A Random Forest model using photoplethysmography with ADASYN balancing and 35 features achieved an F1 score of 81.40%, with 88.57% sensitivity for sleep and 71.31% specificity for wake detection.
Does a feature-based machine learning model using photoplethysmography accurately classify sleep-wake states?
A feature-based Random Forest model using PPG data with ADASYN balancing achieved an F1 score of 81.40% for sleep-wake classification, offering a potential alternative to polysomnography for wearable devices.
Absolute Event Rate: 81.4% vs 89.05%
Sleep disorders affect millions globally, leading to serious health issues. Accurate sleep-wake classification is essential for diagnosis and management. While polysomnography is the gold standard, it is costly and invasive; photoplethysmography (PPG) offers a viable alternative. Using the Cyclic Alternating Pattern Sleep Database (84 participants, 85,542 epochs), we extracted 330 features and reduced dimensionality via statistical tests and the SelectFromModel method. To address class imbalance, we applied Adaptive Synthetic (ADASYN) sampling. A Random Forest model, validated with 20-fold cross-validation on the unbalanced dataset (75 features), achieved an F1 score of 89.05% but struggled with wake detection. With ADASYN balancing and 35 features, it achieved 88.57% sensitivity (sleep) and 71.31% specificity (wake), with an F1 score of 81.40%. This feature-based approach improves PPG-based sleep classification, supporting clinical adoption and integration into wearable devices for remote sleep monitoring.
Markov et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in Sleep disorders (n=84). Random Forest model with ADASYN balancing and 35 features (PPG-based sleep staging) vs. Unbalanced dataset model was evaluated on F1 score for sleep-wake classification (20-fold cross-validation). A Random Forest model using photoplethysmography with ADASYN balancing and 35 features achieved an F1 score of 81.40%, with 88.57% sensitivity for sleep and 71.31% specificity for wake detection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: