MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412118466 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.70077

Salivary/Serum Progesterone Ratio Differs Between Menstrual Cycle Phases but Not Between Populations: Implications for Health, Reproductive, and Behavioral Research

2025· article· en· W4412118466 on OpenAlexaff
Virginia J. Vitzthum, Diva Bellido, Lourdes Echalar, Esperanza Cáceres, Jonathan Thornburg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichigan State UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityIndiana University
KeywordsMenstrual cycleLuteal phaseConfoundingPopulationFollicular phasePhysiologyVenous bloodDemographyMedicineBlood samplingMenstruationInternal medicineHormoneEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives Many investigations of human health, behaviors, and adaptations require an indicator of ovarian cycle functioning as a causal, outcome, or confounding variable in the study design and analyses. Because the dynamic fluctuations in cycle hormones can rarely be adequately characterized by a single measurement, but repeated blood sampling can be onerous, salivary free progesterone (P Free‐SAL ) concentration is widely used in both clinical and research contexts as an alternative to total progesterone concentration in venous blood samples (P Total‐VEN ). However, some doubts have been raised about the use of P Free‐SAL because of suggestions that Bolivian and other populations and/or individuals might differ markedly in the ratio of P Free‐SAL to P Total‐VEN (the apparent uptake fraction, UF). If there are such differences, several decades of comparative population research based on P Free‐SAL would require reconsideration, and a seemingly useful tool in both clinical and research contexts would be lost or require additional extensive pre‐use evaluations. Such impacts would fall disproportionally on clinical monitoring and research studies of menstruating persons, a segment of the population that has long been underrepresented in research and clinical trials, especially in low resource conditions. Therefore, we tested three hypotheses: (H1) UF differs by ovarian cycle phase; (H2) UF differs in Bolivian women from that of non‐Bolivian women; and (H3) within a population, UF is consistently higher or lower in some individuals than in most others. Methods We collected mid‐follicular and mid‐luteal near‐concurrent samples of venous blood and saliva from 36 healthy premenopausal Bolivian women. P Total‐VEN and P Free‐SAL were measured using commercial enzyme immunoassays. To test the study hypotheses, we used graphical and statistical methods to analyze these new data and to analyze data from several previously published studies. Results In our study sample of Bolivian women, P Free‐SAL and P Total‐VEN concentrations ( n = 66 pairs) were significantly and highly correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.858; mixed model: intercept = 77.4 pmol/L [( p < 0.001), β = 0.0191 ( p < 0.001)]). An individual's follicular‐phase UF and luteal‐phase UF were not significantly correlated (rho = −0.19, p = 0.462). Median UF equaled 8.1% for follicular and 2.3% for luteal phase pairs and were comparable to published values for other populations. Conclusions Hypothesis 1 was supported. Consistent with prior reports for other populations, in these Bolivian women UF was higher and more variable in the follicular than in the luteal phase. The source(s) of phase‐associated variation in UF deserves additional study, particularly the dynamic relationship to different conformers of corticosteroid‐binding globulin (CBG). Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Paired P Free‐SAL and P Total‐VEN were highly correlated, and UF in these Bolivians was comparable to published values for other populations. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. There was no evidence that some individuals have consistently higher (or lower) UF than most other persons. In sum, these findings do not support the suggestions that the physiology underlying the relationship between P Free‐SAL and P Total‐VEN differs substantially and inexplicitly between populations and individuals. These results also reinforce the critical roles of fastidious attention to sample collection and handling, judicious assessment of assay results, and appropriate statistical methods when using ovarian steroid data in any project. We suggest some guidelines for meeting these requirements. Used with due consideration for its advantages and limitations, P Free‐SAL reliably tracks P Total‐VEN during the menstrual cycle and is a useful option in the biomarker toolkit. Just as it is costly to continue our work with tools not up to the task, so is it costly to discard useful tools without good reason. The development (and improvement through replication) of a robust toolkit for assessing changes in and the impacts of menstrual cycle hormones is foundational to reducing gender‐based health disparities. (The linked file listed below under “Supporting Information” presents these findings in Spanish).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207