Users' Perspectives on Multimodal Menstrual Tracking Using Consumer Health Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous menstrual health literature highlights a variety of signals not included in existing menstrual trackers because they are either difficult to gather or are not typically associated with menstrual health. Since it has become increasingly convenient to collect biomarkers through wearables and other consumer-grade devices, our work examines how people incorporate unconventional signals (e.g., blood glucose levels, heart rate) into their understanding of menstrual health. In this paper, we describe a three-month-long study on fifty participants' experiences as they tracked their health using physiological sensors and daily diaries. We analyzed their experiences with both conventional and unconventional menstrual health signals through surveys and interviews conducted throughout the study. We delve into the various aspects of menstrual health that participants sought to affirm using unconventional signals, explore how these signals influenced their daily behaviors, and examine how multimodal menstrual tracking expanded their scope of menstrual health. Finally, we provide design recommendations for future multimodal menstrual trackers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".