Menstrual Cycle Cycle Physiology

Wearable Sensors Reveal Menses-Driven Changes in Physiology and Enable Prediction of the Fertile Window: Observational Study

Goodale BM, Shilaih M, Falco L, Dammeier F, Hamvas G, Leeners B

Published April 18, 2019 Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(4), e13404
DOI 10.2196/13404 PMID 30998226 PMC PMC6495289

RRM Academy Synopsis

Wrist bracelet detected the fertile window in 90% of test cycles

A wrist bracelet detected the fertile window in about 9 out of 10 test cycles, a prospective cohort study of 237 Swiss women trying to conceive found. The 90% figure comes from 85 cycles of 24 women who synced the bracelet on 80% or more of days.

Key Findings

  • Analysis covered 708 of 1194 recorded cycles from 193 women. Cycles counted when the bracelet synced on at least 80% of days and a positive luteinizing hormone test was logged.
  • Wrist skin temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate differed by cycle phase (all P<.001). Heart rate variability and skin perfusion differed at P<.05 but only trended toward significance after Bonferroni correction.
  • In 85 validation cycles from 24 women, the algorithm detected the 6-day fertile window in 90% of cycles (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92).
  • Sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.85) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.94). The overall F score was 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.82).
  • In a simulation that randomly removed 50% of nightly observations from the validation data, the algorithm detected the fertile window in more than 86% of cycles (95% CI 0.85 to 0.89).

Interpretation

This prospective cohort study followed 237 Swiss women ages 18 to 40 with regular cycles who were trying to conceive. Women wore a wrist bracelet that tracked skin temperature, heart rate, and breathing rate, and used home urine tests for luteinizing hormone to mark the end of the fertile window. The algorithm found the 6-day fertile window in 90% of 85 test cycles. Heart rate variability and skin perfusion also changed by cycle phase, but in the opposite direction the authors expected. A simulation that removed half the nightly readings still found the fertile window in more than 86% of cycles. The authors note their accuracy numbers come from users who synced the bracelet on most days, a higher bar than typical use. The findings support larger studies of wearable fertility tracking.

RRM Context

Fertility awareness-based methods also time the fertile window from body signs. Couples chart these signs themselves, with no sensor or lab test. Restorative reproductive medicine starts by asking why a cycle or a path to pregnancy is not working.

Abstract

Background

Previous research examining physiological changes across the menstrual cycle has considered biological responses to shifting hormones in isolation. Clinical studies, for example, have shown that women's nightly basal body temperature increases from 0.28 to 0.56 ˚C following postovulation progesterone production. Women's resting pulse rate, respiratory rate, and heart rate variability (HRV) are similarly elevated in the luteal phase, whereas skin perfusion decreases significantly following the fertile window's closing. Past research probed only 1 or 2 of these physiological features in a given study, requiring participants to come to a laboratory or hospital clinic multiple times throughout their cycle. Although initially designed for recreational purposes, wearable technology could enable more ambulatory studies of physiological changes across the menstrual cycle. Early research suggests that wearables can detect phase-based shifts in pulse rate and wrist skin temperature (WST). To date, previous work has studied these features separately, with the ability of wearables to accurately pinpoint the fertile window using multiple physiological parameters simultaneously yet unknown.

Objective

In this study, we probed what phase-based differences a wearable bracelet could detect in users' WST, heart rate, HRV, respiratory rate, and skin perfusion. Drawing on insight from artificial intelligence and machine learning, we then sought to develop an algorithm that could identify the fertile window in real time.

Methods

We conducted a prospective longitudinal study, recruiting 237 conception-seeking Swiss women. Participants wore the Ava bracelet (Ava AG) nightly while sleeping for up to a year or until they became pregnant. In addition to syncing the device to the corresponding smartphone app daily, women also completed an electronic diary about their activities in the past 24 hours. Finally, women took a urinary luteinizing hormone test at several points in a given cycle to determine the close of the fertile window. We assessed phase-based changes in physiological parameters using cross-classified mixed-effects models with random intercepts and random slopes. We then trained a machine learning algorithm to recognize the fertile window.

Results

We have demonstrated that wearable technology can detect significant, concurrent phase-based shifts in WST, heart rate, and respiratory rate (all P<.001). HRV and skin perfusion similarly varied across the menstrual cycle (all P<.05), although these effects only trended toward significance following a Bonferroni correction to maintain a family-wise alpha level. Our findings were robust to daily, individual, and cycle-level covariates. Furthermore, we developed a machine learning algorithm that can detect the fertile window with 90% accuracy (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92).

Conclusions

Our contributions highlight the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning's integration into health care. By monitoring numerous physiological parameters simultaneously, wearable technology uniquely improves upon retrospective methods for fertility awareness and enables the first real-time predictive model of ovulation.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Physiology › Ovulation · Fertility Awareness › Technology › Wearable Devices · Reproductive Endocrinology › Ovulation Physiology › Follicular Development
Brianna Mae Goodale, Mohaned Shilaih, Lisa Falco, Franziska Dammeier, Györgyi Hamvas, Brigitte Leeners
B Goodale, M Shilaih, L Falco, F Dammeier, G Hamvas, B Leeners
PMID 30998226 30998226 DOI 10.2196/13404 10.2196/13404 Goodale et al. 2019, Goodale 2019