fixes and improvements
This commit is contained in:
@@ -5,9 +5,9 @@
|
||||
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related_work}
|
||||
|
||||
This section will introduce related work of both ovulation detection and ovulation prediction.
|
||||
First, we'll introduce early work on the detection of the ovulation based on biomarkers.
|
||||
Then, we'll show how others have used body temperature to predict ovulation and what their limitations are.
|
||||
Lastly, we will take a closer look at related work that uses other biomarkers as base, or as an addition to the body
|
||||
First, I will introduce early work on the detection of the ovulation based on biomarkers.
|
||||
Then, I will show how others have used body temperature to predict ovulation and what their limitations are.
|
||||
Lastly, I will take a closer look at related work that uses other biomarkers as base, or as an addition to the body
|
||||
temperature for ovulation and fertility prediction.
|
||||
|
||||
A variety of approaches have historically been explored for ovulation detection and prediction,
|
||||
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ 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 was no separation into cycle groups and all cycles were in a regular group, with a mean length 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user