A Quadriparametric Model to Describe the Diversity of Waves Applied to Hormonal Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even in normally cycling women, hormone level shapes may widely vary between cycles and between women. Over decades, finding ways to characterize and compare cycle hormone waves was difficult and most solutions, in particular polynomials or splines, do not correspond to physiologically meaningful parameters. OBJECTIVE: We present an original concept to characterize most hormone waves with only two parameters. METHODS: The modelling attempt considered pregnanediol-3-alpha-glucuronide (PDG) and luteinising hormone (LH) levels in 266 cycles (with ultrasound-identified ovulation day) in 99 normally fertile women aged 18 to 45. The study searched for a convenient wave description process and carried out an extended search for the best fitting density distribution. RESULTS: The highly flexible beta-binomial distribution offered the best fit of most hormone waves and required only two readily available and understandable wave parameters: location and scale. In bell-shaped waves (e.g., PDG curves), early peaks may be fitted with a low location parameter and a low scale parameter; plateau shapes are obtained with higher scale parameters. I-shaped, J-shaped, and U-shaped waves (sometimes the shapes of LH curves) may be fitted with high scale parameter and, respectively, low, high, and medium location parameter. These location and scale parameters will be later correlated with feminine physiological events. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that, with unimodal waves, complex methods (e.g., functional mixed effects models using smoothing splines, second-order growth mixture models, or functional principal-component- based methods) may be avoided. The use, application, and, especially, result interpretation of four-parameter analyses might be advantageous within the context of feminine physiological events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".