Breast tenderness and swelling experiences related to menstrual cycles and ovulation in healthy premenopausal women: Secondary analysis of the 1-year “Prospective Ovulation Cohort”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast tenderness and swelling are associated with premenstrual symptoms but are not well described in healthy women. In this 1-year prospective observational study, we examined daily breast tenderness and swelling to determine whether differences existed between normally ovulatory and ovulatory disturbed (short luteal phase and anovulatory) cycles in a cohort of community dwelling, non-smoking, healthy premenopausal women. Enrolment required two consecutive normal-length and normally ovulatory cycles by Quantitative Basal Temperature© analysis. Women (n = 53) ages 20-41 recorded their daily breast experiences in the Menstrual Cycle Diary© across an average of 13.6 cycles. In all 720 cycles, the median breast tenderness was 1.4 (on a 0-4 scale, range 0.0-3.0), in cycles with a mean length of 28.1 days (95% CI 27.5-28.8). Comparison of breast tenderness and breast size (changes from usual) parameters between all normally ovulatory cycles and all ovulatory disturbed cycles in the whole cohort showed significantly higher levels in normally ovulatory (luteal length ≥10 days) in both Breast Tenderness Score [intensity X duration in days; 6.0 (range 1.0-14.0) vs. 3.0 (0.0-11.0) (P=.005)] and breast size [4.0 (2.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (0.0-4.0) (P=.034]). However, within-woman in the forty-seven women with both normally ovulatory and ovulatory disturbed cycles, breast tenderness (intensity, duration, and Breast Tenderness Score), did not differ between normally ovulatory cycles and cycles with ovulatory disturbances. This study also demonstrated that in all ovulatory cycles, the timing of breast tenderness increased in parallel with breast swelling; the maximum for both was in the late luteal phase.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".