MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physiological Signs of Ovulation and Fertility Readily Observable by Women

2013· article· en· W2010906236 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Linacre Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationBasal body temperaturePhysiologyGold standard (test)MedicineFertilityLuteinizing hormoneNatural family planningGynecologyUrineObstetricsPopulationInternal medicineHormoneFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Confirmation of ovulation can be difficult in clinical practice, as gold standard methods including serial transvaginal ultrasonography, serum luteinizing hormone (LH) measurements, or laparoscopic follicular observation are impractical. Numerous surrogate markers have been proposed and evaluated in relation to these gold standards that have more practical clinical applications. PURPOSE: To review the evidence on physiological signs of ovulation timing and fertility in order to determine valid markers that can be easily identified by women. METHODS: A literature review of primary resources in Ovid Medline was undertaken to identify studies examining physiological signs as they relate to gold standard assessment of ovulation. Studies examining the efficacy/effectiveness of different types of natural family planning were excluded. RESULTS: The most commonly encountered physiological signs were urine LH, cervical mucus, and basal body temperature (BBT). Urine LH as assessed by home monitoring systems indicated ovulation 91 percent of the time during the 2 days of peak fertility on the monitor and 97 percent during the 2 peak days plus 1. Cervical mucus peak characteristics were identified 78 percent of the time ±1 day, and 91 percent of the time ±2 days of LH surge indicating ovulation. Further research supports the importance of cervical mucus in overall fertility, as conception rates were more closely related to mucus quality than to timing of intercourse related to ovulation. As a lone indicator of ovulation, BBT is at best a retrospective marker, and functions best in conjunction with other signs of ovulation. Additionally, salivary ferning, salivary and vaginal fluid electrical potential, finger-finger electrical potential, and differential skin temperature were postulated as possible indicators, but were not found to be temporally related to ovulation. The research on differential skin temperature is promising, but minimal thus far in number, and has not been evaluated as an adjunct to BBT as yet. CONCLUSION: Home urinary LH monitors are becoming more widely available and less expensive giving women the potential to assess the ovulatory status of their cycle in real time. Cervical mucus observation is an effective and cost-efficient method, but requires some teaching to increase the confidence of users. In conjunction, LH monitors and cervical mucus can give the best indication of fertility and ovulation timing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Linacre QuarterlySame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207