ArticleJMIR formative research2020
Identifying Women at Risk for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Using a Mobile Health App: Virtual Tool Functionality Assessment.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in polycystic ovarian syndrome management: past, present, and future.La Radiologia medica · 2025Pooled it
- Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and classification of polycystic ovarian syndrome: a systematic review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- AutoPCOS: a stepwise multimodal intelligent framework for polycystic ovary syndrome risk stratification and diagnostic support.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Mobile Apps Designed for Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Availability and Use of Digital Technology Among Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Validity and Quality of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) Screening Tools Available for Women Globally: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The association of COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual health: A period-tracking app-based cohort study.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Assessment of a Digital Symptom Checker Tool's Accuracy in Suggesting Reproductive Health Conditions: Clinical Vignettes Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Menstrual Cycle Tracking Behaviors in the Ovulation and Menstruation Health Pilot Study: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual Cycle Tracking Technologies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is an endocrine disrupting disorder affecting about 10% of reproductive-aged women. PCOS diagnosis may be delayed several years and may require multiple physicians, resulting in lost time for risk-reducing interventions. Menstrual tracking apps are a potential tool to alert women of their risk while also prompting evaluation from a medical professional.
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to develop and pilot test the irregular cycle feature, a predictive model that generated a PCOS risk score, in the menstrual tracking app, Clue. The secondary objectives were to run the model using virtual test subjects, create a quantitative risk score, compare the feature's risk score with that of a physician, and determine the sensitivity and specificity of the model before empirical testing on human subjects.
methodsA literature review was conducted to generate a list of signs and symptoms of PCOS, termed variables. Variables were then assigned a probability and built into a Bayesian network. Questions were created based on these variables. A total of 9 virtual test subjects were identified using self-reported menstrual cycles and answers to the feature's questions. Upon completion of the questionnaire, a Result Screen and Doctor's Report summarizing the probability of having PCOS was displayed. This provided information about PCOS and data to facilitate diagnosis by a medical professional. To assess the accuracy of the feature, the same set of 9 virtual test subjects was assigned probabilities by the feature and the physician, who served as the gold standard. The feature recommended individuals with a score greater than or equal to 25% to follow-up with a physician. Differences between the feature and physician scores were evaluated using a t test and a Pearson correlation coefficient in 8 of the 9 virtual test subjects. A second iteration was conducted to assess the feature's probability capabilities.
resultsThe irregular cycle feature's first iteration produced 1 false-positive compared with the physician score and had an absolute mean difference of 15.5% (SD 15.1%) among the virtual test subjects. The second iteration had 2 false positives compared with the physician score and had an absolute mean difference of 18.8% (SD 13.6%). The feature overpredicted the virtual test subjects' risk of PCOS compared with the physician. However, a significant positive correlation existed between the feature and physician score (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.82; P=.01). The second iteration performed worse, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.73 (P=.03).
conclusionsThe first iteration of the feature outperformed the second and better predicted the probability of PCOS. Although further research is needed with a more robust sample size, this pilot study indicates the potential value for developing a screening tool to prompt high-risk subjects to seek evaluation by a medical professional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.