Abstract
Wearable EEG devices such as the Zmax headband offer scalable alternatives to laboratory polysomnography (PSG) for sleep monitoring, but their real-world performance in home settings remains poorly characterised. This study presents a systematic validation of automated sleep staging on the Wearanize+ dataset; a unique multimodal resource providing synchronised full PSG, bilateral Zmax EEG (F7-Fpz/F8-Fpz), and psychiatric phenotyping from 100 participants recorded at home. We first developed and applied an automated signal quality screening framework, revealing that 10% of recordings failed completely due to signal dropout and a further 16% showed partial degradation. We then evaluated two automated staging algorithms; Dreamento and YASA against PSG manual scoring, stratified by signal quality. In technically adequate recordings (N=74), YASA achieved significantly higher agreement than Dreamento (mean κ=0.450 vs 0.371; Δκ=+0.079, p=0.0005), primarily through substantially improved N2 detection (recall: 0.64 vs 0.36). Both algorithms showed a systematic N2/N3 boundary confusion, however in opposite directions: Dreamento over-called N3 (37% of N2 epochs mis-staged as N3), while YASA over-called N2 (35% of N3 epochs mis-staged as N2). Critically, Dreamento showed greater robustness than YASA in degraded-quality recordings (WARN group: κ=0.414 vs 0.330), consistent with its training on Zmax-specific data. Signal quality metrics did not predict staging performance within adequate recordings, indicating that channel topology is the primary limiting factor for frontal single-channel staging. These findings establish the Wearanize+ dataset as a benchmark for wearable sleep staging and motivate the use of PSG manual stage labels for downstream physiological analyses.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Dataset was obtained by DUA from Radboud University and they have established any ethical regulations from their side. Secondary analysis of this anonymised publicly available dataset under a signed Data Use Agreement did not require additional ethical approval from the authors' institutional review board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is available through a DUA: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12888818/
