PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 20260 citations

Machine and deep learning in REM sleep behavior disorder: a scoping review and analysis of reporting quality.

View Full Paper
ABAndreas Brink-KjaerIRIrene RechichiDADario Arnaldi

Key Points

  • This review aims to assess the use of machine learning and deep learning in rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder and evaluate the quality of reporting in the identified studies.
  • Reviewed 75 studies applying machine learning and deep learning to REM sleep behavior disorder.
  • Utilized the APPRAISE-AI tool to evaluate methodological and reporting quality of included studies.
  • Analyzed common deficiencies in study design, data sharing, and error analysis.
  • 73.3% of studies focused on RBD detection using polysomnographic data.
  • Only 16% addressed prediction of phenoconversion, primarily using imaging data.
  • 80% of studies exhibited moderate quality, with common deficiencies in data transparency and reporting.

Abstract

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is a parasomnia, and its isolated form is of particular interest, as it is an early phase alpha-synucleinopathy. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models offer potential for automated detection, prediction of phenoconversion, and phenotyping. This scoping review identified 75 studies applying ML/DL in RBD and evaluated their methodological and reporting quality using the APPRAISE-AI tool. Most studies (73.3%) focused on RBD detection and mainly used polysomnographic data for this, while 16% addressed prediction of phenoconversion, with imaging data being the most employed modality. Sample sizes were generally small (most studies including only 20-100 individuals). According to APPRAISE-AI scores, 80% of studies had moderate overall methodological and reporting quality. Common deficiencies included lack of transparency in data and code sharing (23.3%), and poor reporting of hyperparameter tuning (17.1%), bias assessment (26.9%), and error analysis (0.66%). Data leakage was observed in 32% of studies. These issues hinder clinical translation and prevent incremental progress between research groups. Without transparent reporting and shared resources, replication and model comparisons become nearly impossible. Future work should adopt open science principles and rigorous validation to advance AI-based tools in sleep medicine.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Brink-Kjaer et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fadad703f892aec9b1e76ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2026.102299
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper