Innovative Approaches to Menstruation and Fertility Tracking Using Wearable Reproductive Health Technology: Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Emerging digital health technology has moved into the reproductive health market for female individuals. In the past, mobile health apps have been used to monitor the menstrual cycle using manual entry. New technological trends involve the use of wearable devices to track fertility by assessing physiological changes such as temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate. OBJECTIVE The primary aims of this study are to review the types of wearables that have been developed and evaluated for menstrual cycle tracking and to examine whether they may detect changes in the menstrual cycle in female individuals. Another aim is to review whether these devices are effective for tracking various stages in the menstrual cycle including ovulation and menstruation. Finally, the secondary aim is to assess whether the studies have validated their findings by reporting accuracy and sensitivity. METHODS A review of PubMed or MEDLINE was undertaken to evaluate wearable devices for their effectiveness in predicting fertility and differentiating between the different stages of the menstrual cycle. RESULTS Fertility cycle–tracking wearables include devices that can be worn on the wrists, on the fingers, intravaginally, and inside the ear. Wearable devices hold promise for predicting different stages of the menstrual cycle including the fertile window and may be used by female individuals as part of their reproductive health. Most devices had high accuracy for detecting fertility and were able to differentiate between the luteal phase (early and late), fertile window, and menstruation by assessing changes in heart rate, heart rate variability, temperature, and respiratory rate. CONCLUSIONS More research is needed to evaluate consumer perspectives on reproductive technology for monitoring fertility, and ethical issues around the privacy of digital data need to be addressed. Additionally, there is also a need for more studies to validate and confirm this research, given its scarcity, especially in relation to changes in respiratory rate as a proxy for reproductive cycle staging.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".