MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403128693 · doi:10.1038/s44294-024-00037-9

Understanding wrist skin temperature changes to hormone variations across the menstrual cycle

2024· article· en· W4403128693 on OpenAlexafffund
Georgianna Lin, Jin Yi Li, Kenneth Christofferson, Shwetak Patel, Khai N. Truong, Alex Mariakakis

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Women s Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGoogle ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoogle
KeywordsMenstrual cycleSkin temperatureWristPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineHormonePhysical therapyInternal medicineDermatologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer devices are increasingly used to monitor peripheral body temperature (PBT) for menstrual cycle tracking, but the link between PBT and hormone variations remains underexplored. This study examines the relationship between these variables with a focus on nightly wrist skin temperature (WST). Fifty participants provided physiological and self-reported data, including WST, daily step counts, glucose levels, hormone levels (E3G, LH), and diary entries. Results show a negative correlation between WST and hormone levels when E3G and LH are below average, and this trend was robust to demographics and self-reported stress. Increased variance between mid-cycle hormonal peaks and WST fluctuations may stem from differences between basal body temperature (BBT) and WST. This research suggests that algorithms reliant on body temperature for tracking hormonal changes or other aspects of the menstrual cycle may need to account for increased variance in WST trends if they are meant to be deployed on wearable devices.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Women s HealthSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207