Fertility Awareness Methods

Tracking of menstrual cycles and prediction of the fertile window via measurements of basal body temperature and heart rate as well as machine-learning algorithms

Yu JL, Su YF, Zhang C, Jin L, Lin XH, Chen LT, Huang HF, Wu YT

Published August 13, 2022 Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
DOI 10.1186/s12958-022-00993-4 PMID 35964035 PMC PMC9375297

RRM Academy Synopsis

Temperature and heart rate predict fertile windows in regular cycles

In a Shanghai cohort of 114 women, temperature plus heart rate predicted the fertile window with 87.46% accuracy in regular cycles. Ultrasound and blood tests confirmed ovulation. Applied to irregular cycles, it reached 72.51% accuracy.

Key Findings

  • The analysis included 305 cycles from 89 women with regular cycles and 77 cycles from 25 women with irregular cycles, all with confirmed ovulation.
  • In regular cycles, basal body temperature and heart rate were significantly higher in the fertile phase than in the follicular phase and peaked in the luteal phase (all P < 0.001).
  • In 80 test cycles from 21 women with regular cycles, fertile window prediction from temperature plus heart rate reached an AUC of 0.8993, with 87.46% accuracy, 69.30% sensitivity and 92.00% specificity.
  • In the same regular-cycle group, temperature alone gave 86.65% accuracy for the fertile window. For menses, temperature plus heart rate gave 89.60% accuracy, 70.70% sensitivity, 94.30% specificity and an AUC of 0.7849.
  • In irregular cycles, fertile window prediction had 72.51% accuracy, 21.00% sensitivity, 82.90% specificity and an AUC of 0.5808. In the same irregular group, menses prediction had 75.90% accuracy.

Interpretation

The study followed women over several cycles and tested its algorithms on a separate set of cycles. Participants were women aged 18 to 45 with natural cycles. Women using hormonal contraception were excluded. Ultrasound and hormone tests confirmed ovulation, a method the authors call the gold standard. In irregular cycles the algorithm missed most fertile days, a high false-negative rate in the authors' words. The authors call that result preliminary.

RRM Context

Fertility awareness methods read the basal body temperature shift as a sign that ovulation has happened. The authors note that temperature records confirm ovulation only 2 or 3 days after it occurs. The paper adds overnight wearable heart rate and finds both signals rise from the follicular phase into the fertile phase in regular cycles. Women with cycles outside 25 to 35 days form the group in which the algorithm performed least well.

Abstract

Background

Fertility awareness and menses prediction are important for improving fecundability and health management. Previous studies have used physiological parameters, such as basal body temperature (BBT) and heart rate (HR), to predict the fertile window and menses. However, their accuracy is far from satisfactory. Additionally, few researchers have examined irregular menstruators. Thus, we aimed to develop fertile window and menstruation prediction algorithms for both regular and irregular menstruators.

Methods

This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted at the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital in Shanghai, China. Participants were recruited from August 2020 to November 2020 and followed up for at least four menstrual cycles. Participants used an ear thermometer to assess BBT and wore the Huawei Band 5 to record HR. Ovarian ultrasound and serum hormone levels were used to determine the ovulation day. Menstruation was self-reported by women. We used linear mixed models to assess changes in physiological parameters and developed probability function estimation models to predict the fertile window and menses with machine learning.

Results

We included data from 305 and 77 qualified cycles with confirmed ovulations from 89 regular menstruators and 25 irregular menstruators, respectively. For regular menstruators, BBT and HR were significantly higher during fertile phase than follicular phase and peaked in the luteal phase (all P < 0.001). The physiological parameters of irregular menstruators followed a similar trend. Based on BBT and HR, we developed algorithms that predicted the fertile window with an accuracy of 87.46%, sensitivity of 69.30%, specificity of 92.00%, and AUC of 0.8993 and menses with an accuracy of 89.60%, sensitivity of 70.70%, and specificity of 94.30%, and AUC of 0.7849 among regular menstruators. For irregular menstruators, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 72.51%, 21.00%, 82.90%, and 0.5808 respectively, for fertile window prediction and 75.90%, 36.30%, 84.40%, and 0.6759 for menses prediction.

Conclusions

By combining BBT and HR recorded by the Huawei Band 5, our algorithms achieved relatively ideal performance for predicting the fertile window and menses among regular menstruators. For irregular menstruators, the algorithms showed potential feasibility but still need further investigation.

Trial Registration

ChiCTR2000036556. Registered 24 August 2020.

Read the guide

Topics

By this author

Related research

Fertility Awareness › Methods › Sympto-Thermal Method · Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Biomarkers › Basal Body Temperature · Research Methods › Measurement and Statistics › Statistical Methods
Jia-Le Yu, Yun-Fei Su, Chen Zhang, Li Jin, Xian-Hua Lin, Lu-Ting Chen, Yan-Ting Wu
J Yu, Y Su, C Zhang, L Jin, X Lin, L Chen, Y Wu
PMID 35964035 35964035 DOI 10.1186/s12958-022-00993-4 10.1186/s12958-022-00993-4 Yu et al. 2022, Yu 2022