further work on results
This commit is contained in:
@@ -136,10 +136,10 @@ For women aiming to avoid pregnancy, minimizing false-negative predictions is cr
|
||||
Although false-positives may lead to unnecessary abstinence, this outcome is generally considered less severe.
|
||||
Consequently, prediction algorithms should be conservative, erring on the side of higher fertility estimates to prioritize safety.
|
||||
|
||||
Conversely, for women aiming to conceive, false-positive predictions could misdirect efforts toward incorrect cycle days,
|
||||
causing frustration or delays.
|
||||
False-negatives have fewer negative consequences.
|
||||
Therefore, algorithms for this group should prefer cautious fertility estimates, reducing the risk of misdirected effort.
|
||||
For women aiming to conceive, incorrect predictions are less severe, as they might, at worst, result in misdirected
|
||||
pregnancy effort, causing frustration or delays, but no potential dangers to the health of a woman.
|
||||
Therefore, algorithms for this group don't need to be as conservative.
|
||||
It remains to be seen, where the middle ground lies and how different algorithms perform for different use cases.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Physiological Signs of Ovulation}\label{subsubsec:physiological_signs}
|
||||
Several physiological signs correlate with ovulation and can be used for prediction.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user