Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of 2 automated systems, Morpheus and Somnolyzer24X7, with various levels of human review/editing, in scoring polysomnographic (PSG) recordings from a clinical trial using zolpidem in a model of transient insomnia. METHODS: 164 all-night PSG recordings from 82 subjects collected during 2 nights of sleep, one under placebo and one under zolpidem (10 mg) treatment were used. For each recording, 6 different methods were used to provide sleep stage scores based on Rechtschaffen & Kales criteria: 1) full manual scoring, 2) automated scoring by Morpheus 3) automated scoring by Somnolyzer24X7, 4) automated scoring by Morpheus with full manual review, 5) automated scoring by Morpheus with partial manual review, 6) automated scoring by Somnolyzer24X7 with partial manual review. Ten traditional clinical efficacy measures of sleep initiation, maintenance, and architecture were calculated. RESULTS: Pair-wise epoch-by-epoch agreements between fully automated and manual scores were in the range of intersite manual scoring agreements reported in the literature (70%-72%). Pair-wise epoch-by-epoch agreements between automated scores manually reviewed were higher (73%-76%). The direction and statistical significance of treatment effect sizes using traditional efficacy endpoints were essentially the same whichever method was used. As the degree of manual review increased, the magnitude of the effect size approached those estimated with fully manual scoring. CONCLUSION: Automated or semi-automated sleep PSG scoring offers valuable alternatives to costly, time consuming, and intrasite and intersite variable manual scoring, especially in large multicenter clinical trials. Reduction in scoring variability may also reduce the sample size of a clinical trial.
Svetnik et al. (Thu,) studied this question.