What "validated against PSG" should tell you.

PSG — polysomnography — records multiple physiological signals for professional interpretation. Saying a product was compared with PSG is incomplete unless the claim also names the output, reference annotation, study design, dataset, metric, and limits.

Here is a practical checklist for reading SomniSense's evidence and other published comparisons.

The word that's doing all the work: "paired"

Paper A describes retrospective classification against PSG-derived labels; Paper E evaluates compression on the derived feature dataset. These results do not establish clinical screening performance.

A comparison between unrelated group averages does not answer the same question as simultaneous paired recordings. Cohort size, setting, inclusion criteria, and underrepresented groups also matter, so these details should be available beside the result.

Reference scoring and blinding

Someone has to review the PSG and create the clinical reference annotations — that is "scoring," and it is done by trained technicians. The question is: did the scorer know what the app already said?

Blinded scoring helps reduce the risk that knowledge of the app output influences the reference annotations. A useful report states whether scoring was blinded and how the reference labels were produced.

"Agreement" is a spectrum, not a checkbox

Even with paired nights and blinded scoring, “agreement” is not a yes-or-no property. The right analysis depends on whether the task is segment classification, window classification, event detection, or measurement agreement.

Paper A describes retrospective classification against PSG-derived labels; Paper E evaluates compression on the derived feature dataset. These results do not establish clinical screening performance.

How ours was actually run

Reference: audio paired with PSG-based event annotations. The exact scorer certification and blinding procedures are not documented in these sources. Research · Accuracy