3.8 Article

Automatic Sleep Stage Classification for the Obstructive Sleep Apnea

出版社

TRANS TECH PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.4028/p-svwo5k

关键词

signal detection; discrete wavelet transform; Hilbert-Huang Transform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Automatic sleep scoring systems have gained more attention in recent decades. Despite various studies in this field, the accuracy of these methods is still below acceptable limits for real-life data. In this study, five different datasets were prepared using 124 individuals, including 93 unhealthy and 31 healthy individuals. Various classifiers were applied to these datasets using different feature sets and feature selection techniques to search for the highest classification accuracy. The Bagged Tree classifier achieved a relatively high accuracy of 95.06% with the use of 14 features out of a total of 136 features, surpassing previous literature for real-data applications.
Automatic sleep scoring systems have been much more attention in the last decades. Whereas a wide variety of studies have been used in this subject area, the accuracies are still under acceptable limits to apply these methods to real-life data. One can find many high-accuracy studies in literature using a standard database but when it comes to using real data reaching such high performance is not straightforward. In this study, five distinct datasets were prepared using 124 persons including 93 unhealthy and 31 healthy persons. These datasets consist of time-, nonlinear-, welch-, discrete wavelet transform- and Hilbert-Huang transform features. By applying k-NN, Decision Trees, ANN, SVM, and Bagged Tree classifiers to these feature sets in various manners by using feature-selection highest classification accuracy was searched. The maximum classification accuracy was detected in the case of the Bagged Tree classifier as 95.06% with the use of 14 features among a total of 136 features. This accuracy is relatively high compared with the literature for a real-data application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据