Study record · framework · 2021

A standardized framework for testing the performance of sleep-tracking technology: step-by-step guidelines and open-source code

Menghini L, Cellini N, Goldstone A, Baker FC, and de Zambotti M

Sleep, 44(2), zsaa170 · 2021

Why this study matters to CircaTest

The methodological reference paper for sleep tracker validation. Defines the pipeline (epoch-by-epoch agreement, Bland-Altman, kappa) that every credible validation study now follows. CircaTest's methodology page cites this as the basis for why kappa is preferred over raw accuracy.

Abstract

Sleep-tracking devices, particularly within the consumer sleep technology (CST) space, are increasingly used in both research and clinical settings, providing new opportunities for large-scale data collection in highly ecological conditions.…

Read the full abstract on the source →

Source: PUBMED · Excerpt for fair-use commentary; full abstract via the source link

Population

Age

n/a

Reference standard

psg

Methodological framework paper, not an empirical validation. Provides the analytical pipeline for downstream studies including Bland-Altman, discrepancy analysis, and epoch-by-epoch agreement.

Cite this study

Menghini L, Cellini N, Goldstone A, Baker FC, and de Zambotti M (2021). A standardized framework for testing the performance of sleep-tracking technology: step-by-step guidelines and open-source code. Sleep, 44(2), zsaa170. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsaa170

AI-assembled record · errors are possible

This page was built and is maintained by AI working from the published abstract and PubMed metadata for the cited study. CircaTest does not have access to the full text of every paper in its corpus. Categories of error that have happened on this site and could happen again include:

Per-device metric values inferred when the abstract reports only an aggregate range
Stage-specific accuracy figures pulled from secondary sources rather than the primary paper
Sample size or population characteristics missing from the abstract
Editorial framing in the curatorial note that overstates the study's actual scope
Year typos and author-name transliteration errors

Where a metric value reads see source, the published abstract did not contain that value and CircaTest deliberately left it null rather than guess. For any decision that depends on the underlying numbers, please consult the linked PubMed, PMC, or DOI source directly. Corrections are welcome via the about page.

Source links

Added to the CircaTest meta-analysis on 2026-04-06. How CircaTest evaluates studies →