When Women Question the Pill, the Right Response Isn't "Misinformation"
A wave of articles has labeled young women who reject hormonal birth control as victims of misinformation. As a surgeon who treats the downstream consequences e...
Is Your Cycle App Helping You, or Misleading You?
Women walk into my office having tracked their cycles for years. Sometimes two years. Sometimes five. They have charts, graphs, synced data, temperature overlays, hormone predictions. They believe they know their bodies.
What they usually don't know: the app was guessing.
The app was guessing. It ran population averages through an algorithm trained on data no clinician ever reviewed, then handed her the output as if it were about her body. No one set out to mislead her. The method did that on its own. To the algorithm she was never a patient. She was a point in a distribution.
This is the quiet crisis at the center of femtech. It has been building for fifteen years.
The Companies Aren't Using the Science
Here is what I want to be clear about: the science exists.
Decades of FABM research. Validated cycle-based diagnostics. Clinical protocols refined across generations of practitioners. We know what a well-observed mucus pattern looks like. We know what a luteal phase looks like when it is clinically adequate, and what it looks like when it is not. We know which biomarkers matter and in what sequence. That knowledge is real, documented, and practitioners have used it to achieve reproducible clinical outcomes.
These companies are not using it.
They are building algorithms on population averages. They are training on aggregate cycle data from millions of users with no grounding in validated clinical protocols. The knowledge exists. The companies chose to build around it instead of on top of it.
Some companies have research. But it is internal, self-funded, and summarized in a press release. Research published somewhere that requires actual scrutiny, tested against validated clinical standards? Researchers Frank-Herrmann, Freundl, and Stanford documented this gap in 2017: very few fertility app companies had published any outcome data in a peer-reviewed venue. A 2022 review in Frontiers in Medicine confirmed the pattern holds: very few of these apps have evidence to support their effectiveness for identifying the fertile window, for achieving or preventing pregnancy. (Duane M et al., Frontiers in Medicine, 2022)
The technology is moving faster than the companies' willingness to use what we already know. That gap is where women get hurt.
What Cycle Data Actually Tells Us
Women are charting. That part is good. Cycle awareness is genuine body literacy. In the right clinical hands, the ovulatory cycle is an extraordinarily informative biomarker: a window into ovulation timing, luteal function, hormonal patterns, and underlying disease.
Most fertility apps do not capture the right data.
A woman who has used a temperature-only app for three years has three years of basal body temperature readings. What she often does not have: timed serum progesterone in the luteal phase. Cervical mucus observations interpreted against a validated protocol. An assessment of whether her luteal phase length is clinically adequate. These are the data points that let a clinician determine whether ovulation occurred, whether the luteal phase supports potential conception, and whether an underlying condition requires treatment.
LH strips are another example. They are one of the most common data points femtech devices rely on. They are also one of the most clinically limited. An LH surge can occur without ovulation. The timing can be missed. The interpretation requires clinical context that an app cannot supply.
Take "28," a widely downloaded cycle app. It generates fertile window predictions using population-based algorithms, not the user's actual biomarkers. For cycle literacy it may be fine. As a standalone family-planning tool, it is asking a statistical model to make a clinical call it was never equipped to make.
An app can generate a prediction. Whether that prediction means anything depends on the science behind it.
The result: women arrive with charts that feel detailed and are clinically empty. Through no fault of their own. Through the gap between what the technology promises and what it delivers.
No One Is Checking
No government agency evaluates whether a fertility app's core algorithm is clinically valid. No regulatory framework was designed for software-based reproductive guidance. Many of these tools have received no more regulatory scrutiny than a step counter, even when they tell a woman whether she can conceive or whether she is protected from pregnancy on a given day.
These tools serve two opposite clinical goals: helping couples conceive, and helping couples avoid pregnancy. A device that is imprecise is fine for step counting. In family planning, imprecision is the failure mode. The evidentiary bar for software making those claims is not set by a professional society. It is effectively unset.
A company can call its product "fertility-grade" without meeting any fertility-grade standard. There is no required comparison against validated methods. There is no clinical body positioned to say whether any of it holds up.
The Data Privacy Dimension
Women focused on building their families often do not stop to consider what happens to the most intimate data they are generating. Their cycle patterns. Their ovulation predictions. Their fertile windows. Their pregnancy attempts. Their losses.
Companies store this data. In many cases, third parties access it. Companies use it to improve their algorithms. It sits in storage under terms most users never read.
Most of these companies operate outside HIPAA. They operate under their own privacy policies. Cycle data is among the most intimate health information a woman generates. Women deserve to know where it goes before they generate it.
An Analogy Worth Considering
Consumer products once made environmental and ingredient claims with nothing behind them. Clean. Natural. Non-toxic. Shoppers had no way to evaluate the claims. The Environmental Working Group built a trusted scoring system that translated complex ingredient science into accessible consumer intelligence. It did not eliminate the products. It gave people a reference point that was not controlled by the companies doing the selling. Market behavior shifted without waiting for regulatory action.
Femtech needs the same thing. The products are not going away. Many of them have genuine utility. Women deserve a trusted clinical reference point that is not controlled by the companies selling the technology. Right now, that reference point does not exist in any systematic, accessible form.
Where to Start
The published evidence does exist. Most women evaluating fertility apps never find it because it lives in journals, not app stores.
The RRM Research Library contains over 4,000 peer-reviewed studies on reproductive physiology, cycle-based diagnostics, and cause-based fertility care. The FABM research is there. The outcome data on validated methods is there. When you are trying to determine whether a tool actually works, those studies are a starting point.
Two questions worth asking before you trust a fertility app. What data does it actually capture? The cornerstone biomarker in fertility awareness is cervical mucus, the most direct real-time read on the fertile window, and a few tools are built around it: Kegg, for example, reads changes in cervical fluid. Most apps instead lean on temperature, which reflects the progesterone rise that accompanies ovulation but cannot confirm that an egg was released, or on an LH surge, which can come and go without ovulation. None of those signals replaces mucus observed against a validated protocol, or timed bloodwork read by a clinician trained in cycle-based evaluation. And has this tool been validated against a clinical standard? Research a company published about itself is not the same as research published by people with no financial stake in the result.
Who has access to the data you are generating, and under what terms?
Clinical conversations about this are happening in the Save the Uterus Club. Members get access to recordings of those conversations. If you want to go deeper on what the evidence actually shows about these tools, and what cycle data can and cannot tell a clinician, that is where those discussions live.
Follow @napro_fertility_surgeon on Instagram for clinical perspective on cycle literacy, reproductive health, and what restorative care actually looks like.
