Back

Modeling cycle phases using hormone trajectories in women with and without polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome

Stujenske, T. M.; Bouchard, T. P.; Troy, A.; Kelemen, S.; Folino, B.; Wills, T.; Sugden, L. A.

2026-06-04 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354701 medRxiv
Show abstract

The recent availability of at-home menstrual cycle tracking technology has created opportunities for personalized assessment of reproductive health, alongside improved characterization of hormone patterns in women with and without reproductive disorders such as polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), which affects approximately 10% of reproductive-age women. In this study, we leverage self-tracked urinary hormone data to develop an autoregressive Hidden Markov model (arHMM) that maps cycle days to physiologically meaningful phases based on hormone trajectories. By modeling day-to-day hormonal dynamics rather than absolute hormone levels, and allowing variable phase durations, this approach accommodates substantial variability in menstrual cycles, thereby enabling meaningful comparisons within and between individuals. Across more than 3800 cycles from over 1100 individuals, we find that arHMM-derived phases reproduce expected hormonal patterns within follicular, periovulatory, and luteal phases, and that phase-based timing for hormone testing outperforms conventional cycle day-based testing in capturing the luteinizing hormone surge and post-ovulatory progesterone rise, highlighting limitations of fixed-day clinical protocols. We identify phase-specific differences between healthy controls and individuals with self-reported PMOS, including lower luteinizing hormone in the periovulatory phase, and reduced luteal-phase progesterone levels in PMOS. Furthermore, features derived from arHMM phase assignments enable classification of PMOS status with ~78% accuracy, demonstrating the potential of this approach for non-invasive PMOS screening.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
23.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.4%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.7%
4
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.0%
5
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 19%
4.5%
7
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
10
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.9%
11
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.9%
12
Human Reproduction
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
14
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
15
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.4%
17
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
19
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
21
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
22
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
24
The FASEB Journal
175 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.5%
27
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.5%