Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug 28;8:12975. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31266-z

Table 5.

Comparison algorithm with polysomnography in healthy good sleepers (N = 22, Pennsylvania).

Parameters Metric Value t; DF P
Sleep onset Difference (min) −20 (95% CI: −39; −2) −2.30; 21 0.03
MAE (min) 32.9
Sleep wake Difference (min) −17 (95% CI: −39; 4) −1.67; 21 0.11
MAE (min) 21.0
SPT-window Difference in duration (min) 2 (95% CI: −24; 27) 0.14; 21 0.89
MAE in duration (min) 37.7
c-statistic 0.83 (IQR: 0.80–0.90)
c-statistic 24 hour 0.95 (IQR: 0.95–0.99)
Accuracy (%) 89 (IQR: 86–97)
Accuracy 24 hour (%) 96 (IQR: 95–99)
Sleep within SPT Difference in duration (min) −6 (95% CI: −27; 15) −0.59; 21 0.56
Sensitivity (%) 93 (IQR: 94–100)
Sleep efficiency within SPT Difference (percent point) −1.74 (95% CI: −4.46; 0.98) −1.33; 21 0.20
MAE (min) 4.8

*P < 0.005; MAE: mean absolute error; min: minutes; SPT-window: Sleep period time window; CI: Confidence Interval; DF: degrees of freedom; t: t-statistic; IQR: Inter quartile range; Recording expanded with simulated data of wakefulness to resemble 24 hours.