hopefully final commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ In~\citeyear{wallach_prediction_1980}, \citeauthor{wallach_prediction_1980} iden
|
||||
including salivary ferning and viscosity, serum levels of progesterone and estrogen,
|
||||
and urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations~\cite{wallach_prediction_1980}.
|
||||
These indicators showed strong correlation with ovulation timing as measured via transvaginal ultrasound.
|
||||
\citeauthor{noauthor_monitoring_1987} later expanded on this work by focusing specifically on LH and estradiol,
|
||||
confirming that LH surges reliably indicate an imminent ovulation event.
|
||||
\citeauthor{vermesh_monitoring_1987} later expanded on this work by focusing specifically on LH and estradiol,
|
||||
confirming that LH surges reliably indicate an imminent ovulation event~\cite{vermesh_monitoring_1987}.
|
||||
|
||||
Despite their diagnostic value, many of these biomarkers are difficult to measure continuously and reliably in everyday settings,
|
||||
limiting their practicality for real-time or large-scale applications.
|
||||
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ However, several studies have raised concerns about its reliability as a predict
|
||||
high susceptibility to external confounders, recommending caution in its clinical or research use~\cite{bauman_basal_1981}.
|
||||
Similarly, \citeauthor{moghissi_accuracy_1976} emphasized its limited accuracy, particularly in cycles with irregularities~\cite{moghissi_accuracy_1976}.
|
||||
|
||||
However, such conclusions were largely based on the standard BBT method, which relies on a single-point measurement taken
|
||||
Such conclusions were largely based on the standard BBT method, which relies on a single-point measurement taken
|
||||
immediately upon waking—typically reflecting the body's lowest resting temperature.
|
||||
In contrast, this study, along with several recent works, leverages continuous or high-resolution temperature data collected during sleep or throughout the day.
|
||||
This richer signal provides a more robust foundation for detecting ovulatory patterns and addresses many of the limitations historically associated with BBT-based methods.
|
||||
@@ -78,10 +78,27 @@ For menstruation prediction, the model detected 70.70\% of menstruation days in
|
||||
|
||||
These results indicate that the model performed well in regular cycles but struggled with irregularity, particularly in detecting the fertile window.
|
||||
|
||||
Complementing academic efforts, several commercial products have adopted temperature-based tracking,
|
||||
such as \textit{Ava}~\cite{sl_ava_nodate}, \textit{Daysy}~\cite{electronics_zykluscomputer_nodate}, \textit{Trackle}~\cite{noauthor_trackle_nodate}
|
||||
or \textit{Natural Cycles}~\cite{noauthor_natural_nodate}.
|
||||
However, these products typically rely on proprietary algorithms, and no peer-reviewed publications are available detailing their methodology or performance.
|
||||
In~\citeyear{kilungeja_machine_2025},~\citeauthor{kilungeja_machine_2025} trained a set of classification models
|
||||
to predict the cycle phase a day based on skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval and heart rate.
|
||||
The measurements were automatic and did not require manual participant input~\cite{kilungeja_machine_2025}.
|
||||
The classification was either into three or four targets: period, ovulation, luteal phase, and follicular phase for the four-class models.
|
||||
Their dataset included 65 cycles across 18 subjects.
|
||||
They trained a decision tree, random forest ensemble, logistic regression and support vector machine to enable
|
||||
an architectural comparison.
|
||||
Results show an edge for the random forest model with a reported 87\% accuracy and AUC-ROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve)
|
||||
of 0.96 for the three class approach.
|
||||
The four class approach significantly reduced accuracy to 68\% and AUC-ROC of 0.77.
|
||||
There was no separation into cycle groups and all cycles were in a regular group, with a mean lengths of 28 days (SD: 1.65).
|
||||
|
||||
There are some additional studies based on commercial products, such as \emph{Oura Ring}\cite{thigpen_oura_2025}
|
||||
or \emph{Natural Cycles}\cite{bull_real-world_2019} that work with temperature data as a base.
|
||||
However, they all focus on retrospective ovulation-detection and often complement this with advice to remain
|
||||
abstinent during the first cycle phase until the ovulation was reliably detected.
|
||||
This way they can offer a contraceptive product option, without needing to create a predictive model or algorithm.
|
||||
|
||||
Complementing academic efforts, several other commercial products have also adopted temperature-based tracking,
|
||||
such as \textit{Ava}~\cite{sl_ava_nodate}, \textit{Daysy}~\cite{electronics_zykluscomputer_nodate} or \textit{Trackle}~\cite{noauthor_trackle_nodate}.
|
||||
However, these products rely on proprietary algorithms, and no peer-reviewed publications are available detailing their methodology or performance.
|
||||
This lack of transparency limits their scientific evaluation and comparability.
|
||||
In contrast, the present study provides an open and data-driven approach to ovulation prediction based on continuous temperature data, aiming to contribute reproducible evidence to the field.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user