top of page

Counting Sheep, Counting Data: The ‘REM’edy for Sleep Study Documentation with Neurobit

The art of documenting sleep studies often swings between two poles – is less more, or is more better? A study titled "Documentation of polysomnographic and home sleep apnea test interpretations: room for improvement?" conducted by Herberts and Morgenthaler provides an illuminating perspective on this dilemma. The study delves into the consistency of certain quality criteria and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) phenotypes in sleep study interpretations and clinical notes.

Inconsistent Documentation: A Cause for Concern

Herberts and Morgenthaler noticed a concerning trend: many important OSA phenotypes, such as positional OSA (POSA) or OSA without obesity, were frequently undocumented in sleep study reports. Moreover, certain predefined quality criteria were also overlooked in a significant number of interpretations and clinical notes.

The implications of this inconsistent documentation extend beyond mere paperwork. In fact, it directly affects patient outcomes. For instance, if total recording time during polysomnography or total sleep time on home sleep apnea testing is inadequately documented, it could lead to a less reliable or even incorrect diagnosis and treatment. The absence of critical details, like the positionality of OSA and the absence of supine rapid eye movement sleep during positive airway pressure titration, can skew treatment decisions and their outcomes.

Standardization and Technology: Potential Solutions

Several factors contribute to this lack of standardization, such as differing levels of training and expertise among sleep providers, the absence of consensus on quality criteria and disease phenotypes, and a lack of standardized reporting formats. The researchers suggest a potential solution – leveraging better organization of test results, automated calculation, and graphical display of critical quality indicators and phenotypes, to enhance recognition and reporting.

Treading with Caution: Interpreting Sleep Apnea Phenotypes

While striving for improved documentation, it is essential to exercise caution, particularly in interpreting sleep apnea phenotypes. For instance, the concept of positional OSA needs to be handled sensitively and intelligibly, so as not to misguide therapeutic strategies. Understanding that patients with the same supine and nonsupine apnea-hypopnea index may require different treatments is crucial.

Moreover, while the notion of endotypes in OSA offers a promising avenue for personalized treatment, current evidence does not fully support the diagnosis of endotypes based on sleep studies. Therefore, clinicians must exercise their judgment when interpreting sleep study data to make appropriate decisions for individual patients.

Striking the Right Balance with Neurobit's Innovative Solutions

Neurobit recognizes the challenges in sleep study documentation and has designed innovative solutions to address these issues:

  1. Neurobit Score: Our AI and deep learning platform enables accurate sleep event labeling, enhancing the reliability of sleep study interpretations.

  2. Z3 Pulse: This wearable ECG device provides comprehensive sleep reports and personalized guidance, supporting detailed and patient-centered documentation.

  3. Neurobit Hub: As a platform for collecting and analyzing extensive datasets, it promotes the discovery of novel biomarkers and sleep-centric treatment strategies. This aids in the recognition of OSA phenotypes and endotypes, supporting personalized treatment decisions.

By implementing Neurobit's solutions, we can enhance consistency in sleep study documentation and improve patient outcomes.

The Path Ahead with Neurobit

Despite the challenges in sleep study documentation, Herberts and Morgenthaler's study underscores the need for more research and innovation in this area. At Neurobit, we are committed to advancing sleep science research and clinical practice by developing cutting-edge tools to aid in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Our goal is to strike the right balance in documentation – one that supports healthcare professionals empowers patients, and facilitates personalized care without adding undue burden. We believe that our innovative technologies, such as Neurobit Score, Z3 Pulse, and Neurobit Hub, contribute to achieving this balance by providing more accurate, patient-specific data and facilitating efficient documentation practices.

The research findings underscore the critical role of detailed and consistent sleep study documentation in achieving optimal patient outcomes. As the field continues to grapple with these challenges, Neurobit's technology emerges as a key tool in addressing these issues. The integration of AI and deep learning, along with personalized wearable devices and comprehensive data collection platforms, will streamline the process, enhance the accuracy of reports, and pave the way for personalized treatment strategies.

However, we understand that technology alone cannot solve these challenges. A collaborative effort from clinicians, researchers, and technology providers is essential to bring about significant improvement in the field of sleep medicine. As such, we invite healthcare professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders to join us on this journey. Together, we can work towards a future where sleep study documentation is not just a routine process, but a cornerstone of personalized and effective patient care.

If you wish to learn more about our technologies, collaborate with us on research initiatives, or support our mission of advancing sleep science, we would be delighted to hear from you. Please reach out to us at

Let's work together to shape the future of sleep study documentation, one sleep report at a time!


Budhiraja, R. (2023). Sleep study documentation: Is less more, or is more better?Commentary on Herberts MB, Morgenthaler TI. Documentation of polysomnographic and home sleep apnea test interpretations: room for improvement? J Clin Sleep Med . 2023;19(6):1043–1049. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.10460. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 19(6), 1013–1014.

bottom of page