ArticleScientific reports2026
Benchmarking machine learning architectures for menstrual recovery prediction using physiologically informed synthetic wearable data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary amenorrhea is a heterogeneous condition with implications for reproductive, cardiovascular, and bone health. Existing machine learning approaches in menstrual health focus on cycle prediction rather than recovery modeling in pathological conditions. We present a proof-of-concept framework to model menstrual recovery within three months from non-invasive wearable-derived physiological features and self-reported inputs, including heart rate variability, resting heart rate, sleep, physical activity, skin temperature, perceived stress, age, and duration of amenorrhea. Using a synthetically generated dataset of 5000 individuals encoding physiologically informed feature-outcome relationships, twelve models were evaluated across baseline and longitudinal configurations. The best-performing model (XGBoost) achieved an AUC of 0.914, with ablation analysis confirming baseline features capturing the majority of learnable signal (ΔAUC = 0.020). Permutation-based null models confirmed non-trivial predictive structure (AUC = 0.503), and XGBoost outperformed rule-based baselines (ΔAUC = 0.044). SHAP analysis identified perceived stress and heart rate variability as dominant predictors, consistent with the data-generating structure. As the wearable-derived features are routinely captured by consumer devices and the self-reported inputs require brief periodic assessment, this framework establishes a foundation for wearable-based modeling of menstrual recovery, with future work required for real-world clinical validation and integration into health monitoring systems.
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.