Menu

HomeHow it worksContact UsContact Us

Improving sleep monitoring in athletes: a comparative evaluation of four automated sleep scoring algorithms on 204 polysomnography recordings.

Crosbie F, Hanif U, Aloulou A, Chauvineau M, Chennaoui M, Nedelec M et al. · Physiological measurement · 2026

This study evaluated four automated AI algorithms (Luna, U-Sleep, YASA, and GSSC) for analyzing sleep stages in 204 sleep recordings from 75 athletes, comparing them to manual expert scoring. All four algorithms performed well with strong agreement to manual scoring, but GSSC was the most accurate and reliable overall, particularly resistant to poor signal quality which commonly occurs when monitoring athletes in real-world settings.
Takeaway: Consider using automated sleep scoring algorithms like GSSC for faster and more accessible sleep monitoring in athlete recovery programs.
Abstract (source)

Objective: 
With advancements in AI, automated sleep scoring offers the potential for fast, precise, and cost-effective analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, robustness, and clinical agreement of four algorithms compared to manual PSG in athletes to determine their suitability for real-life use.
Approach
Data from 75 athletes (204 polysomnography recordings) were retrospectively collected from studies conducted in our laboratory. Manual scoring was compared to four automated sleep staging algorithms: Luna, U-Sleep, YASA, and GSSC. Performance was evaluated based on accuracy (per stage, macro and weighted F1), sensitivity (confusion matrices), robustness (signal quality: R 2 ; individual differences: beta coefficients) and clinical relevance (prediction of total sleep time, sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset).
Main

Results: 
All algorithms demonstrated strong agreement with manual scoring, with macro F1 scores of 0.76 (GSSC), 0.71 (U-Sleep), 0.70 (YASA), and 0.69 (Luna). GSSC was the most accurate and robust across sport, physiological, behavioral, and anthropometric variables. It also reliably predicted total sleep time, sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset, showing minimal bias and narrow limits of agreement. GSSC and Luna were the most resilient to signal degradation (R² = 0.08), compared to YASA (R² = 0.16) and U-Sleep (R² = 0.29).

Significance: 
Automated sleep staging algorithms demonstrated accuracy comparable to typical inter-rater agreement, supporting their broader use in athletes. GSSC emerged as the most accurate and robust option, particularly resilient to signal quality degradation, a common challenge in ecological sport settings. By reducing scoring time and removing the need for expert raters, these algorithms could make polysomnography more accessible for both routine sleep monitoring and large-scale research, enabling more individualized recovery strategies and deeper insights into how sleep architecture influences athletic performance.

Primary studyRecovery & Sleep
Read the original →