further work on methodology
This commit is contained in:
@@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:background_menstruation_data_gap} shows an example cycle with a
|
||||
\label{fig:background_menstruation_data_gap}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
%TODO: more stats!
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Privacy}
|
||||
The dataset used in this study contains sensitive personal health information and is handled with strict privacy safeguards.
|
||||
All data is pseudonymized and processed exclusively on encrypted devices, ensuring that no identifiable information can be traced back to individual users.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,6 +4,17 @@
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Methodology}\label{sec:methodology}
|
||||
|
||||
While prior studies have demonstrated the promise of physiological signals for ovulation detection and phase classification,
|
||||
many are limited by small sample sizes, rigid inclusion criteria, or non-transparent methodologies.
|
||||
Temperature has emerged as a potentially predictive signal, but existing work often lacks scalability or generalizability.
|
||||
This study extends previous approaches by leveraging a large, heterogeneous real-world dataset of high-resolution core body temperature
|
||||
readings to develop and evaluate machine learning models for real-time ovulation prediction.
|
||||
In addition to model development, special emphasis is placed on evaluating performance across irregular cycles and assessing
|
||||
the predictive value of low-noise, high-resolution temperature data.
|
||||
|
||||
The following section outlines the methodology used, including data preprocessing,
|
||||
feature extraction, input encoding, and model architectures.
|
||||
|
||||
% why did I select tft over other methods -> include examples of time series and why I belief a complex model could help
|
||||
% you did I apply it
|
||||
% implementation details
|
||||
@@ -368,6 +379,15 @@ fertility probability and ovulation-over indicator.
|
||||
Figure~\ref{fig:methodology_transformer_architecture} shows the overall architecture.
|
||||
The stacked inputs and outputs indicate batch processing.
|
||||
|
||||
Model-specific architectural parameters are:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item \textbf{Input Length} — Number of time steps included in each input sequence.
|
||||
\item \textbf{Embedding dimension} — Dimensionality of the Transformer internal token representation.
|
||||
\item \textbf{Number of Encoder-Layers} — Number of encoder layers to stack
|
||||
\item \textbf{Number of Attention-Heads} — Number of attention heads to use in each layer
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
The specific values and tuning ranges for these parameters are discussed in Section~\ref{subsubsec:hyperparameter_tuning}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Temporal Convolution Layer}
|
||||
\label{subsubsec:temporal_convolution_layer}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -439,7 +459,7 @@ Hyperparameter tuning was divided into two stages:
|
||||
(1) tuning of input-related parameters such as resampling rate, and
|
||||
(2) tuning of model-specific architectural parameters such as hidden size or attention heads.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Input Parameter Tuning}% \mbox{}\\
|
||||
\paragraph{Input Parameter Tuning:}
|
||||
This stage involved identifying optimal settings for data preprocessing and input representation.
|
||||
Key variables included the resampling rate (temporal resolution) and historical context length (input window size).
|
||||
These parameters strongly influence the structure of the input signal and can significantly affect model performance.
|
||||
@@ -480,10 +500,48 @@ while Table~\ref{tab:input_hyperparameters_conv} lists those for the convolution
|
||||
Note that convolutional models do not require an explicit resampling parameter, as they perform learned downsampling internally
|
||||
(see Section~\ref{subsubsec:temporal_convolution_layer}).
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Model Parameter Tuning}% \mbox{}\\
|
||||
Once suitable input configurations were established, model-specific hyperparameters were tuned.
|
||||
For LSTM-based models, this included hidden layer size and number of recurrent layers.
|
||||
For Transformer models, relevant parameters included the number of attention heads and encoder depth.
|
||||
\paragraph{Model Parameter Tuning}
|
||||
To identify the most suitable configuration for each model architecture, model-specific hyperparameters were tuned for optimal predictive performance.
|
||||
The goal was to balance model complexity and expressiveness in relation to the given input configuration.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[htbp]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt} % adjust column spacing
|
||||
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % more row spacing
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{@{}p{0.28\textwidth}p{0.45\textwidth}p{0.20\textwidth}@{}}
|
||||
\toprule
|
||||
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Values Tested} \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Hidden Layer Size & Size of the LSTM hidden layer & 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 \\
|
||||
Number of LSTM Layers & Number of stacked LSTM layers & 1, 2, 4 \\
|
||||
\bottomrule
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\caption{Model hyperparameters for the LSTM and convolutional-LSTM hybrid architectures.}
|
||||
\label{tab:lstm_model_hyperparameters}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[htbp]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt} % adjust column spacing
|
||||
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % more row spacing
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{@{}p{0.28\textwidth}p{0.45\textwidth}p{0.20\textwidth}@{}}
|
||||
\toprule
|
||||
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Values Tested} \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Embedding Dimension & Size of the internal token embedding & 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 \\
|
||||
Number of Encoder Layers & Number of stacked encoder layers & 1, 2, 4, 8 \\
|
||||
Number of Attention Heads & Number of attention heads per layer & 1, 2, 4, 8 \\
|
||||
\bottomrule
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\caption{Model-related hyperparameters for the Transformer and Convolutional-Transformer-Hybrid architectures.}
|
||||
\label{tab:transformer_model_hyperparameters}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
Tables~\ref{tab:lstm_model_hyperparameters} and~\ref{tab:transformer_model_hyperparameters} summarize the tested hyperparameters and value ranges
|
||||
for the LSTM-based and Transformer-based models, respectively.
|
||||
Note that the same settings were used for the hybrid models, as their architecture beyond the convolutional front end is structurally identical.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\vspace{0.5em}
|
||||
We acknowledge that interactions between input and model parameters may influence final model performance,
|
||||
@@ -501,3 +559,16 @@ joint parameter space in a more efficient and principled manner.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Baseline Comparisons}\label{subsubsec:baseline_comparisons}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Ethical Considerations}\label{subsec:ethical_considerations}
|
||||
|
||||
This study was conducted using pseudonymized data collected in accordance with the terms of service and privacy policy of the data provider, VivoSensMedical GmbH (Leipzig, Germany).
|
||||
All users whose data were included had consented to the use of their recordings for analytical purposes at the time of data collection.
|
||||
|
||||
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the provider's internal legal and scientific advisory team,
|
||||
which is responsible for ensuring ethical and regulatory compliance.
|
||||
|
||||
All data used in this study were pseudonymized prior to access.
|
||||
No personal identifiers or sensitive metadata were included.
|
||||
Additional safeguards were implemented to ensure data confidentiality and integrity,
|
||||
including restricted access and use solely for the purposes of model development and evaluation.
|
||||
No compensation was provided to participants, as the data were originally collected as part of routine usage under the agreed terms.
|
||||
@@ -3,13 +3,30 @@
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related_work}
|
||||
There has been a variety of works in menstrual cycle analysis and ovulation prediction based on different physiological signs.
|
||||
|
||||
A variety of approaches have historically been explored for ovulation detection and prediction,
|
||||
ranging from hormonal assays to physiological signal tracking.
|
||||
|
||||
In~\citeyear{wallach_prediction_1980}, \citeauthor{wallach_prediction_1980} identified several physiological indicators for ovulation timing,
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Temperature-Based Approaches}\label{subsec:temperature_based_approaches}
|
||||
Body temperature has emerged as a more accessible physiological signal for ovulation tracking,
|
||||
given the feasibility of continuous and non-invasive measurement.
|
||||
As outlined in Section~\ref{subsubsec:physiological_signs}, basal body temperature (BBT) exhibits a biphasic pattern across
|
||||
the menstrual cycle that correlates with ovulation.
|
||||
|
||||
Several studies have questioned the utility of BBT (Basal Body Temperature) for reliable ovulation prediction.
|
||||
For example \citeauthor{bauman_basal_1981} concluded, that BBT is not a robust standalone marker due to its
|
||||
retrospective nature and sensitivity to external factors and thus must be used with extreme caution clinical or research evaluations~\cite{bauman_basal_1981}.
|
||||
However, several studies have raised concerns about its reliability as a predictive marker.
|
||||
\citeauthor{bauman_basal_1981} concluded that BBT alone is insufficiently robust due to its retrospective nature and
|
||||
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
|
||||
immediately upon waking—typically reflecting the body's lowest resting temperature.
|
||||
@@ -72,7 +89,6 @@ These findings suggest that electrical resistance is a strong physiological mark
|
||||
A related modern implementation is the commercial product \textit{kegg}~\cite{noauthor_kegg_nodate}, which measures the electrical resistance of cervical mucus.
|
||||
The device uses an undisclosed algorithm to estimate fertility status based on these readings, although no peer-reviewed validation studies are currently available.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\citeauthor{masuda_machine_2025} developed a machine learning algorithm to classify phases of the menstrual cycle
|
||||
(follicular vs. luteal) based on sleeping heart rate, as recorded by a fitness tracker~\cite{masuda_machine_2025}.
|
||||
They used an XGBoost classifier for this binary task and additionally performed ovulation day prediction,
|
||||
@@ -100,8 +116,7 @@ waking—they report classification accuracies between 0.843 and 0.864, dependin
|
||||
with very similar numbers for precision, recall, specificity and F1 score.
|
||||
Ovulation day prediction yielded an average absolute error between 3.6 and 4.1 days.
|
||||
|
||||
When models are trained on highly constrained datasets with predictable patterns and clear ovulatory signals,
|
||||
complex methods often show limited gains over naive or rule-based approaches—as will be demonstrated in Section~\ref{sec:methodology}.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Summary:}
|
||||
While various physiological signals and modeling strategies have been explored for ovulation prediction,
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user