Evidence Hub

Machine Learning for Diagnosis and Differentiation of Central Disorders of Hypersomnolence: A Systematic Review

Helmy A, Fregolente LG, von Gernler M, Morand R, van der Meer J, Schmidt M, Mougiakakou S, Tzovara A et al.

European journal of neurology, 2026

Abstract

Background and purpose: Central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) are, except for Narcolepsy Type 1 (NT1), difficult to diagnose and manage because of overlapping features and the lack of reliable biomarkers. Machine learning (ML) has the potential to improve diagnosis by detecting subtle physiological patterns and distinguishing between CDH subtypes. This review systematically explores current ML applications in CDH, assesses their limitations, and suggests future directions.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (up to June 2025) were searched for studies using ML to classify or characterize CDH in adults. ML methods, data types, and diagnostic outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

Results: Out of 3274 studies, 41 met the inclusion criteria (37 peer-reviewed articles and 4 preprints). Data sources included neuroimaging (fMRI, PET), sleep assessments (MSLT, polysomnography), demographics, and standardized questionnaires. Supervised ML reliably identified known features, including early REM onset, hypocretin deficiency, and spectral EEG changes, showing strong performance for NT1 but limited generalizability across other CDH subtypes. Although many studies reported high accuracy, clinical relevance was often limited by rigid diagnostic labels that may not reflect the true complexity of CDH. Unsupervised learning uncovered heterogeneous phenotypes and exposed limitations in existing diagnostic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free