Defining the Phases: Establishing a Scientific Consensus for Menstrual Cycle Nomenclature in Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This article addresses the critical lack of standardized definitions and methodologies for characterizing menstrual cycle phases in biomedical research. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it synthesizes current physiological knowledge, critiques prevalent but unscientific practices like phase estimation, and proposes a rigorous framework for phase determination based on direct hormonal measurement. The content explores the profound implications of menstrual cycle phases on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical outcomes, providing actionable recommendations for optimizing study design, improving data validity, and ultimately ensuring women's health is accurately represented in clinical evidence.

The Physiology of the Menstrual Cycle and the Critical Need for Standardization

The menstrual cycle represents a complex, dynamic interplay of endocrine, ovarian, and endometrial events that serves as a critical indicator of female reproductive health and systemic physiological function. For researchers and drug development professionals, precise understanding of this system is paramount, yet substantial challenges persist in standardization and nomenclature. The significant heterogeneity in defining key stages like premenopause highlights the pressing need for consensus in menstrual cycle research [1]. Contemporary studies reveal that the long-held textbook standard of a 28-day cycle with ovulation on day 14 does not reflect biological reality for most individuals, with only 13% of women correctly identifying their ovulation time and fewer than 17% having a 28-day median cycle length [2] [3]. This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of menstrual cycle physiology, correlating hormonal fluctuations with structural changes, and establishes standardized methodological frameworks for research applications, supporting a broader thesis on nomenclature consensus in female reproductive physiology.

Core Physiological Correlations: Hormonal, Ovarian, and Endometrial Dynamics

Integrated Hormonal Signaling and Feedback Mechanisms

The menstrual cycle is regulated through a complex hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis feedback system. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus stimulates pituitary secretion of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), which in turn regulate ovarian hormone production [4]. Theca cells, under LH stimulation, produce progesterone and androstenedione, which granulosa cells then convert to 17-β estradiol via FSH-stimulated aromatase activity [4]. This system operates primarily through negative feedback, except at the cycle midpoint when a critical estradiol level triggers a positive feedback loop, resulting in the LH surge that induces ovulation [4].

Quantitative Hormonal and Structural Changes Across Cycle Phases

Table 1: Hormonal and Structural Correlations Across the Menstrual Cycle

Cycle Phase	Duration (Days)	Dominant Hormones	Ovarian Events	Endometrial Changes	Ultrasonographic Findings
Follicular	1-14 (Variable) [4]	Estrogen: 180 ± 20 pg/mL [5]	Follicle maturation; Dominant follicle selection [4]	Proliferation from basalis layer; Stromal & glandular development [4]	Endometrial thickness: 4.5 ± 0.8 mm [5]
Ovulatory	~Day 14 (24-36h window) [4]	LH surge: 25 ± 5 IU/L [5]	Follicle rupture; Oocyte release [4]	Peak proliferation; Secretory transformation initiation	Dominant follicle: 18.5 ± 2.0 mm [5]
Luteal	14 ± 2 Days [4]	Progesterone: 15 ± 3 ng/mL [5]	Corpus luteum formation & function [4]	Secretory activity; Stromal edema; Decidualization [4]	Corpus luteum: 14.0 ± 1.5 mm; Endometrial thickness: 10.2 ± 1.1 mm [5]
Menstrual	3-7 Days [4]	Low estradiol & progesterone [4]	Follicle recruitment begins [4]	Vasoconstriction; Tissue breakdown; Shedding of functionalis [4]	Thin endometrial line; Possible residual follicular activity [5]

The follicular phase demonstrates progressive endometrial thickening from 4.5mm to approximately 8-12mm, while ovarian follicle development culminates in a dominant follicle reaching 18.5±2.0mm at ovulation [5] [4]. The luteal phase shows sustained endometrial development under progesterone influence, with thickness peaking at 10.2±1.1mm alongside corpus luteum formation measuring 14.0±1.5mm [5]. These structural changes provide quantifiable biomarkers for researchers tracking cycle progression and hormonal activity.

Cycle Variability Across Populations and Age Groups

Table 2: Menstrual Cycle Characteristics by Age Group (Based on Global Cohort Data)

Age Group	Median Cycle Length	Follicular Phase Trend	Luteal Phase Trend	Notable Patterns
18-24 Years	29-day median more common than 28 days [3]	Longer follicular phases [2]	Higher frequency of short luteal phases [3]	Greater cycle variability [3]
25-39 Years	Intermediate patterns [3]	Progressive shortening with age [2]	Stabilization of luteal length [3]	Increasing regularity [3]
≥40 Years	27-day median more common than 28 days [3]	Significant follicular shortening [2]	Longer luteal phases [3]	Perimenopausal transition patterns [1]

Large-scale data from menstrual tracking apps reveal that only 16.32% of women have a 28-day median cycle length, challenging this historical benchmark [3]. Age-associated changes include follicular phase decline from approximately 16.0 days in the early 20s to 13.5 days in the late 30s, while luteal phase length remains relatively stable at 12-14 days [2]. These variations highlight the importance of age-specific reference ranges in clinical trials and drug development protocols.

Advanced Methodologies for Menstrual Cycle Research

Ultrasonographic Assessment Protocols

Experimental Protocol: Ultrasonographic Assessment of Uterine and Ovarian Changes

A prospective observational study design enables comprehensive tracking of structural changes throughout the menstrual cycle [5]:

• Participant Selection: Include 50 women aged 20-35 years with regular menstrual cycles (21-35 days), excluding those with hormonal contraception, uterine/ovarian pathology, or endocrine disorders [5].
• Imaging Schedule: Conduct transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasonography during three key phases: early follicular (days 3-5), ovulatory (days 13-15), and mid-luteal (days 21-23) [5].
• Key Measurements:
  • Endometrial thickness (triple-line measurement in sagittal plane)
  • Ovarian follicle diameter (mean of three dimensions)
  • Corpus luteum dimensions and vascularity
  • Uterine artery Doppler indices
• Hormonal Correlation: Collect serum samples simultaneously for estrogen, progesterone, and LH quantification [5].
• Statistical Analysis: Use repeated measures ANOVA to assess phase differences, with P<0.05 considered significant [5].

This protocol yields significant correlations between hormonal levels and structural changes, confirming endometrial thickness increases from 4.5±0.8mm (follicular) to 10.2±1.1mm (luteal), P<0.05 [5].

Hormonal Monitoring Techniques

Experimental Protocol: Quantitative Hormone Monitoring Using At-Home Platforms

Remote hormone monitoring technologies enable dense longitudinal data collection for precise cycle phase identification [2]:

• Platform Selection: Utilize FDA-cleared at-home urine hormone testing systems that quantitatively measure luteinizing hormone (LH) and pregnanediol-3-glucuronide (PdG) [2].
• Testing Schedule: Daily testing throughout complete menstrual cycles, with first-morning urine samples for consistency.
• Data Collection:
  • Automated hormone quantification through smartphone app computer vision algorithms
  • Cycle day tracking based on menstruation onset
  • User-reported symptoms and cycle characteristics
• Ovulation Confirmation: Define ovulation as occurring within 72 hours after detected LH peak, confirmed by subsequent PdG rise [2].
• Phase Calculation:
  • Follicular phase: First day after bleeding cessation to LH peak
  • Luteal phase: Day after ovulation to next menstrual cycle onset [2]

This approach demonstrates that calculated cycle lengths are typically shorter than patient-reported estimates, with significant age-related differences in phase duration [2].

Machine Learning Applications in Phase Identification

Experimental Protocol: Menstrual Phase Classification Using Wearable Device Data

Machine learning algorithms applied to physiological signals enable automated cycle phase tracking [6]:

• Participant Protocol: Recruit naturally menstruating women (no hormonal contraception) with regular cycles. Exclude those with endocrine disorders, recent pregnancy, or breastfeeding [6].
• Data Collection:
  • Physiological signals: Skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval, heart rate
  • Device: Wrist-worn wearable sensors (e.g., E4, EmbracePlus)
  • Duration: 2-5 months continuous monitoring [6]
• Reference Standard: Urinary LH tests to identify ovulation day for phase labeling [6].
• Phase Definitions:
  • Menses: Menstrual bleeding days
  • Follicular: Post-menses to pre-LH surge
  • Ovulation: 2 days before to 3 days after positive LH test
  • Luteal: Post-ovulation to next menses [6]
• Model Training:
  • Feature extraction from non-overlapping fixed-size windows
  • Random forest, logistic regression classifiers
  • Leave-last-cycle-out cross-validation [6]

This methodology achieves 87% accuracy in classifying three menstrual phases (period, ovulation, luteal) using random forest models with an AUC-ROC of 0.96 [6].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Menstrual Cycle Studies

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Research Applications	Technical Considerations
Hormone Assay Systems	ELISA kits, LC-MS/MS, Automated immunoanalyzers [5] [7]	Serum/urine hormone quantification; Cycle phase confirmation	Validation for matrix (serum/urine); Precision at low concentrations; Cross-reactivity profiles
Ultrasonography Platforms	High-resolution transvaginal probes with Doppler capability [5]	Follicle tracking, endometrial changes, ovulation confirmation, corpus luteum assessment	Standardized measurement protocols; Operator training for consistency; 3D volume capability for improved accuracy
At-Home Hormone Monitoring	Oova, Mira, Clearblue Fertility Monitor [8] [2]	Dense longitudinal data; Fertile window identification; Real-world cycle patterns	Quantitative vs. qualitative readouts; LH/PdG specificity; Integration with digital platforms
Wearable Sensors	E4 wristband, EmbracePlus, Oura ring, Tempdrop [6]	Continuous physiological monitoring; Machine learning applications; Sleep and activity correlation	Signal validation against gold standards; Battery life for continuous monitoring; Data export capabilities
Digital Symptom Trackers	Flo App, Natural Cycles, Read Your Body [8] [3]	Population-level cycle patterns; Symptom correlation; Longitudinal cycle databases	Data privacy considerations; Symptom standardization; Recall bias mitigation

The deconstruction of menstrual cycle physiology reveals a highly coordinated yet individually variable system requiring precise measurement approaches for meaningful research outcomes. The correlation between hormonal fluctuations, ovarian structural changes, and endometrial responses provides a framework for understanding female reproductive physiology in both research and clinical contexts. As technological advances in wearable sensors, machine learning, and remote monitoring create new opportunities for dense longitudinal data collection [6] [2], standardization of nomenclature and methodology becomes increasingly critical. Future research must address the significant heterogeneity in current menstrual cycle definitions [1] and establish consensus protocols that enable valid cross-study comparisons and enhance the rigor of drug development processes targeting female physiology.

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis represents a cornerstone of reproductive physiology, orchestrating a complex interplay of hormones to regulate the menstrual cycle, sexual development, and fertility. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical analysis of the core hormones—GnRH, FSH, LH, estrogen, and progesterone—focusing on their molecular mechanisms, regulatory dynamics, and quantitative relationships. Framed within ongoing research to establish consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, this review synthesizes current physiological understanding with experimental methodologies relevant to reproductive endocrine research and therapeutic development. For researchers and drug development professionals, we present structured quantitative data, detailed experimental protocols for key mechanistic studies, and standardized visualizations of signaling pathways to support rigorous investigation and innovation in reproductive medicine.

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis is a tightly regulated neuroendocrine system essential for human reproduction. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) serves as the central regulator, initiating a cascade of events that coordinate reproductive function through pulsatile secretion patterns [9] [10]. This pulsatility directly determines the secretion of pituitary gonadotropins—follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH)—which then regulate both endocrine function and gamete maturation in the gonads [10]. The gonads, in response, produce estrogen and progesterone, which exert critical feedback effects throughout the axis [11] [12].

Understanding the precise temporal dynamics and regulatory relationships within this axis is fundamental to establishing clearer definitions and nomenclature for menstrual cycle phases, a current focus of consensus research. Disruptions at any level of the HPG axis can lead to significant reproductive pathologies, including hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and various forms of infertility [13] [14]. This review dissects the individual components of this hormonal orchestra, emphasizing their integrated roles in female reproductive cyclicity.

Core Hormonal Regulators: Physiology and Molecular Mechanisms

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH)

Genetics and Neuroanatomy

In humans, the GnRH I gene is located on chromosome 8 (8p21-p11.2) and encodes a decapeptide that is the primary isoform for reproductive physiology [9]. GnRH neurons originate in the medial olfactory placode during embryonic development and migrate along the olfactory bulb to their final positions within the hypothalamus, particularly the medial preoptic area (POA) and the arcuate/infundibular nucleus [9] [10]. The total population of GnRH neurons in humans is estimated at only 1,000 to 1,500 cells, forming a neuronal network with projections to the median eminence where GnRH is secreted into the hypophyseal portal circulation [9] [10]. This neuroanatomical arrangement allows the GnRH network to be influenced by a diverse range of neuroendocrine and metabolic inputs.

Pulsatile Secretion and Its Significance

GnRH secretion is inherently pulsatile, not continuous, and this pattern is fundamental to its physiological function [10]. The pulse frequency varies significantly across the female menstrual cycle: approximately every 60-90 minutes during the late follicular phase, slowing to once every 200 minutes during the secretory phase, and increasing again to approximately every 55 minutes in the perimenopausal period [9]. This pulsatile pattern is critical for appropriate gonadotropin secretion; continuous GnRH administration leads to desensitization of pituitary gonadotropes and suppression of gonadotropin release, a principle exploited therapeutically with GnRH agonists [10] [14]. The "GnRH pulse generator" is thought to reside in the medial basal hypothalamus and involves complex interactions between glutamatergic cells, GnRH neurons, and the kisspeptin-neurokinin B-dynorphin (KNDy) neuronal pathway [10].

Table: GnRH Pulse Characteristics Across Reproductive States

Reproductive State	Pulse Frequency	Pulse Amplitude	Primary Regulators
Late Follicular Phase	1 pulse/60-90 min	Variable	High estrogen, Kisspeptin stimulation
Secretory Phase	1 pulse/200 min	Lower	Progesterone slowing frequency
Perimenopause	1 pulse/55 min	Increased	Reduced estrogen negative feedback
Postmenopause (Aging)	Decreases by 35%	–	–

Gonadotropins: FSH and LH

Structural Biology and Biosynthesis

Both FSH and LH are glycoprotein hormones produced by gonadotrope cells in the anterior pituitary. They share a common alpha subunit but possess distinct beta subunits that confer biological specificity [14] [15]. The gene for the alpha subunit is located on chromosome 6q12.21, while the LH beta subunit gene is localized in the LHB/CGB gene cluster on chromosome 19q13.32 [15]. The differential glycosylation of these subunits affects their bioactivity and metabolic clearance; LH has a significantly shorter half-life (20 minutes) compared to FSH (3-4 hours) [15]. The transcription of the LH beta subunit is regulated by GnRH via transcription factors including Egr1, NR5A1, and PITX1 [15].

Differential Regulation by GnRH Pulsatility

The frequency of GnRH pulses differentially regulates FSH and LH secretion. Low-frequency GnRH pulses preferentially stimulate FSH beta subunit gene transcription and FSH release, while high-frequency GnRH pulses favor LH beta subunit gene transcription and LH secretion [10] [14]. This frequency-dependent regulation is a key mechanism for the divergent control of the two gonadotropins throughout the menstrual cycle. Furthermore, FSH secretion appears to have a constitutive component, while LH secretion is almost entirely pulsatile in response to GnRH [10].

Diagram: GnRH Receptor Signaling in Pituitary Gonadotropes. GnRH binding to its Gq-protein coupled receptor activates phospholipase C, leading to the cleavage of PIP2 into DAG and IP3. This triggers protein kinase C activation and calcium release, ultimately stimulating the synthesis and secretion of LH and FSH.

Ovarian Hormones: Estrogen and Progesterone

Estrogen: Biosynthesis and Receptor Signaling

Estrogen exists in three primary forms in women: estradiol (E2), the most potent form during reproductive years; estrone (E1), the primary form after menopause; and estriol (E3), the main form during pregnancy [11]. Ovarian estrogen synthesis follows the "two-cell, two-gonadotropin" model. LH stimulates theca cells to produce androstenedione, which is then transported to granulosa cells where FSH-stimulated aromatase converts it to estrone and subsequently to estradiol [16]. Estrogen exerts its effects by binding to estrogen receptors (ERs) located throughout the body, including the reproductive tract, breast, bone, brain, and cardiovascular system [11]. Its feedback on the HPG axis is complex, exerting negative feedback at low or steady levels but positive feedback at sustained high levels to trigger the preovulatory LH surge [10] [16].

Progesterone: Biosynthesis and Receptor Signaling

Progesterone is primarily produced by the corpus luteum following ovulation and by the placenta during pregnancy [12] [17]. It is derived from cholesterol through a process of steroidogenesis. Progesterone functions by binding to nuclear progesterone receptors (PGR), which exist as three main isoforms: PR-A, PR-B, and PR-C [17]. PR-A and PR-B are ligand-activated transcription factors that regulate gene expression, with PR-B having an additional 164 amino acids that confer unique transcriptional activities. PR-A can inhibit the transcriptional activity of both PR-B and the estrogen receptor, creating a complex regulatory network [17]. Progesterone's effects include preparing the endometrium for implantation, decreasing myometrial contractions, and thickening cervical mucus [12] [17].

Table: Production Rates of Key Sex Steroids During the Menstrual Cycle

Sex Steroid	Early Follicular Phase	Preovulatory Phase	Mid-Luteal Phase
Progesterone (mg/24h)	1	4	25
17α-Hydroxyprogesterone (mg/24h)	0.5	4	4
Androstenedione (mg/24h)	2.6	4.7	3.4
Testosterone (μg/24h)	144	171	126
Estrone (μg/24h)	50	350	250
Estradiol (μg/24h)	36	380	250

Data adapted from Baird DT, Fraser IS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1974 [16].

Integrated Hormonal Dynamics During the Menstrual Cycle

The menstrual cycle represents the ultimate expression of hormonal orchestration, typically divided into the follicular and luteal phases, separated by ovulation.

The Follicular Phase

The follicular phase begins with the onset of menses and ends with ovulation. Declining steroid production from the previous cycle's corpus luteum allows FSH to rise in the late luteal phase, recruiting a cohort of ovarian follicles [16]. From this cohort, one follicle is selected by approximately cycle days 5-7, achieving dominance by day 8 through mechanisms that may involve anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) [16]. The dominant follicle produces increasing amounts of estradiol, which initially exerts negative feedback on FSH secretion. However, when estradiol levels exceed approximately 200 pg/mL for about 50 hours, it triggers a positive feedback response, resulting in the LH surge and ovulation [16].

The Luteal Phase

Following ovulation, the ruptured follicle transforms into the corpus luteum, a temporary endocrine gland that produces large quantities of progesterone [12] [17]. The life span of the corpus luteum is approximately 14 days in the absence of pregnancy. Progesterone's primary function during this phase is to prepare the endometrium for potential implantation by promoting vascularization and secretory changes [17]. If pregnancy does not occur, the corpus luteum regresses, progesterone levels fall, and the endometrial lining is shed as menstruation, beginning a new cycle.

Diagram: HPG Axis and Feedback Loops. The HPG axis features hierarchical control with GnRH stimulating gonadotropin release, which in turn stimulates gonadal steroid production. Steroids complete the loop via negative feedback (maintaining homeostasis) and, in the case of estradiol, positive feedback to generate the preovulatory LH surge.

Experimental Protocols for Key Hormonal Investigations

Protocol: Investigating LH-Stimulated Progesterone Synthesis in Luteal Cells

This protocol, adapted from recent metabolic studies, details the methodology for examining the acute effects of LH on metabolic pathways and progesterone production in primary steroidogenic luteal cells [18].

Cell Isolation and Culture

• Tissue Source: Obtain bovine corpora lutea from a slaughterhouse, as the bovine model is powerful for studying human ovarian physiology due to similar mono-ovulatory patterns, luteal phase length, and conserved LHCGR signaling [18].
• Cell Dispersion: Mince luteal tissue and dissociate using collagenase (e.g., 0.25% collagenase type I or II) in Hanks' Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) with continuous shaking at 37°C for 60-90 minutes.
• Cell Separation: Isolate small steroidogenic luteal cells using density gradient centrifugation or sequential filtration. Culture cells in DMEM/F-12 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ atmosphere.

LH Stimulation and Metabolomic Analysis

• Treatment: Incubate freshly isolated luteal cell suspensions with a physiologically relevant concentration of LH (10 ng/mL) for time points of 10, 30, 60, and 240 minutes. Include control samples at time 0 and 240 minutes to account for basal progesterone production.
• Metabolite Extraction: For untargeted metabolomics, use a dual extraction method with cold methanol, water, and chloroform to extract both hydrophilic and hydrophobic metabolites from cell pellets and conditioned media.
• Mass Spectrometry Analysis: Analyze samples using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-HRMS). Use reversed-phase chromatography for lipid-soluble metabolites and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) for water-soluble metabolites.

Metabolic Flux Analysis

• Isotope Tracing: Incubate cells with 13C-labeled glucose (e.g., [U-13C]glucose) with or without LH stimulation.
• Pathway Analysis: Track the incorporation of 13C into glycolytic intermediates, TCA cycle metabolites, and lipid species using LC-MS to quantify LH-induced changes in metabolic flux.
• Functional Assays: Measure glucose uptake, glycolytic rate, and oxygen consumption rate in real-time using extracellular flux analyzers.

Inhibitor Studies

• Pathway Inhibition: Use selective small molecule inhibitors to target key enzymes identified in metabolomic studies, such as acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACACA) and ATP citrate lyase (ACLY), to confirm their role in LH-stimulated progesterone synthesis.
• Outcome Measures: Assess progesterone production via ELISA or radioimmunoassay, cAMP accumulation, and phosphorylation status of key signaling proteins (PKA substrates, ACLY, etc.) via Western blotting.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Luteal Cell Steroidogenesis Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Cell Isolation	Collagenase Type I/II, HBSS, DNase I	Tissue dissociation and cell separation
Cell Culture	DMEM/F-12 Medium, Fetal Bovine Serum, Antibiotic-Antimycotic	Cell maintenance and experimental treatments
Hormone Stimulation	Luteinizing Hormone (LH), 8-Bromo-cAMP	Activating LHCGR/PKA signaling pathway
Metabolomic Analysis	Methanol, Chloroform, Water, 13C-Labeled Glucose	Metabolite extraction and flux analysis
Pathway Inhibitors	ACACA Inhibitor (e.g., TOFA), ACLY Inhibitor (e.g., BMS-303141)	Probing specific metabolic pathway requirements
Analytical Tools	HPLC-HRMS System, Extracellular Flux Analyzer, Progesterone ELISA Kit	Quantifying metabolites, metabolic rates, and steroid output

Protocol: Assessing Gonadotropin Responses to Pulsatile GnRH Stimulation

This protocol outlines methods for investigating the differential regulation of LH and FSH secretion by GnRH pulse frequency, relevant to understanding hypothalamic dysfunction [10].

In Vivo Models

• Animal Preparation: Use GnRH-deficient models (e.g., hypophysectomized rodents or GnRH-immunoneutralized models).
• Pulsatile Administration: Administer GnRH intravenously via programmable infusion pumps at varying frequencies (e.g., one pulse every 30, 60, 90, or 120 minutes) with careful control of dose per pulse.
• Blood Sampling: Collect frequent blood samples (every 10 minutes) via indwelling catheters to characterize LH and FSH pulsatility.
• Endpoint Analysis: Measure LH and FSH concentrations by immunoassay and analyze pulse frequency, amplitude, and total secretion.

In Vitro Models

• Primary Cell Culture: Culture primary pituitary cells from adult animals or use immortalized gonadotrope cell lines (e.g., LβT2 cells).
• Pulsatile Stimulation: Use programmable perfusion systems to deliver GnRH pulses to cultured cells, mimicking physiological patterns.
• Gene Expression Analysis: Quantify mRNA levels of gonadotropin subunits (α-GSU, LHβ, FSHβ) using qRT-PCR following exposure to different GnRH pulse frequencies.
• Receptor Signaling: Assess activation of downstream signaling pathways (MAPK, CREB) by Western blotting for phosphorylated proteins.

The precise orchestration of GnRH, FSH, LH, estrogen, and progesterone constitutes one of the most sophisticated regulatory systems in human biology. The temporal dynamics, feedback relationships, and molecular signaling pathways described in this whitepaper provide a foundation for understanding both normal reproductive function and its pathophysiological disturbances. As research continues to refine menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, the integrated perspective presented here—spanning from hypothalamic neurosecretion to ovarian steroidogenesis—highlights the complexity that must be captured in any consensus framework. For researchers and drug development professionals, the experimental methodologies and quantitative data summarized provide essential tools for advancing both basic science and therapeutic innovation in reproductive medicine. Future investigations will undoubtedly continue to unravel the nuances of this hormonal orchestra, particularly through the lens of metabolic regulation and neuroendocrine connectivity, offering new targets for intervention in reproductive disorders.

The establishment of clear, standardized parameters for eumenorrhea (normal menstruation) is a fundamental prerequisite for rigorous scientific inquiry into the female menstrual cycle. Within the context of consensus research on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, the precise characterization of a baseline eumenorrheic cycle is critical. It ensures methodological integrity, allows for valid cross-study comparisons, and enables the accurate identification of pathological deviations. This technical guide synthesizes current evidence and expert consensus to delineate the operational definitions and measurement protocols essential for researchers and drug development professionals.

The term eumenorrhea describes a condition of normal, regular menstrual cycles and should be reserved in research for cases where menstrual function has been confirmed through advanced testing beyond self-reported cycle length [19]. In contrast, the term naturally menstruating (or regularly menstruating) refers to individuals not using hormonal contraception who report cycle lengths between 21 and 35 days, but for whom no advanced testing has been conducted to confirm ovulation or a sufficient hormonal profile [19] [20]. This distinction is critical, as the presence of menses and an average cycle length of 21–35 days does not guarantee a eumenorrheic hormonal profile; subtle menstrual disturbances, which are often asymptomatic, can go undetected without verification [19].

Quantitative Parameters of a Eumenorrheic Cycle

The following parameters, based on revisions from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and expert consensus, define the normal bounds of menstrual cyclicity [21] [4].

Table 1: Normal Menstrual Parameters for Eumenorrhea

Parameter	Normal Clinical / Research Value	Notes
Frequency (Cycle Length)	Every 24 to 38 days [21]	Cycle length is measured from day 1 of one period (onset of bleeding) to day 1 of the next [4] [22].
Regularity (Cycle Variability)	Variation of ≤ 7 to 9 days [21]	Regularity is defined as the variation in days between the shortest and longest cycles over a 12-month period. The 9-day threshold typically applies to adolescents (18-25) and perimenopausal adults (42-45) [4].
Duration of Bleeding	≤ 8 days [21] [4]	Bleeding that lasts longer than 8 days is considered prolonged menses [4].
Volume of Bleeding	< 80 mL per cycle [21]	Precise measurement is often infeasible in clinical practice. Assessment is typically based on patient description, but the 80 mL threshold is used for research purposes. Soaking through a pad/tampon every 1-2 hours suggests heavy flow [21] [4].
Annual Frequency	Ten or more periods per year [19] [23]	This helps to exclude individuals with persistent oligomenorrhea.

It is important to note that an individual must meet all the above criteria to be classified as eumenorrheic for research purposes. Furthermore, the rationale for these stringent criteria is illustrated by the hormonal profiles of different cycle types, as shown in the following diagram.

Experimental Protocols for Phase Verification

Relying on a calendar-based counting method alone to define menstrual cycle phases is considered a significant methodological weakness in contemporary research, as it amounts to guessing hormonal status [19]. High-quality research requires verification of the ovarian hormone profile. The following workflow outlines a robust protocol for confirming cycle phases and hormonal status in study participants.

Detailed Methodologies for Hormonal Verification

1. Urinary Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Detection:

• Purpose: To pinpoint the occurrence and timing of ovulation, a mandatory event in a eumenorrheic cycle.
• Protocol: Participants use commercial ovulation predictor kits (e.g., One Step Ovulation Test) at home. Testing should commence several days after the end of menstruation and continue until a positive (surge) result is detected [24]. The day of the LH surge is typically designated as day 0 for cycle phase calculations.

2. Serum or Salivary Hormone Quantification:

• Purpose: To verify the specific hormonal milieu characteristic of each menstrual cycle phase (e.g., low estradiol and progesterone in the early follicular phase; elevated progesterone in the mid-luteal phase) [19] [23].
• Sampling Protocol:
  • Saliva: Collect upon waking, at least 60 minutes after eating, drinking, or brushing teeth. Participants should rinse their mouth with water before collection to remove food particles [24].
  • Blood: Standard venipuncture procedures. Timing should be consistent relative to the time of day.
• Phase-Specific Timing: Measurements should be taken on two consecutive days within each predefined phase (e.g., early follicular, late follicular, ovulation, luteal) to account for diurnal variation and improve reliability [24].
• Analytical Considerations: The accuracy, sensitivity, and variability of the hormonal assays (e.g., ELISA, mass spectrometry) must be reported, as these factors critically influence the interpretation of results [19].

3. Basal Body Temperature (BBT) Tracking:

• Purpose: To provide a secondary, indirect confirmation of ovulation via the thermogenic effect of progesterone.
• Protocol: Participants measure and chart their oral BBT immediately upon waking each morning, before any activity. A sustained temperature increase of approximately 0.3–0.6 °C for at least three days following the low-temperature phase suggests ovulation has occurred [24] [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Menstrual Cycle Studies

Item / Reagent	Primary Function in Research
Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Urine Test Kits	Detects the pre-ovulatory LH surge to confirm and date ovulation in field-based or frequent monitoring studies [24].
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits	Quantifies concentrations of steroid hormones (estradiol, progesterone) and peptide hormones (LH, FSH) in serum, saliva, or urine samples [19] [24].
Salivary Collection Kits (e.g., SalivaBio)	Provides standardized, non-invasive devices for the collection and preservation of saliva samples for subsequent hormonal analysis [24].
Basal Body Temperature (BBT) Thermometers	High-precision thermometers for tracking the biphasic temperature shift associated with ovulation and progesterone release [24] [23].
Hormonal Reference Standards	Certified reference materials for estradiol and progesterone are essential for calibrating analytical equipment and ensuring assay accuracy [19].
Electronic Menstrual Cycle Tracking Platforms	Digital platforms (e.g., ONE TAP SPORTS) for longitudinal data collection of bleeding patterns, symptoms, BBT, and LH test results, facilitating centralized data management [24].

Adherence to stringent, verified parameters for eumenorrhea is non-negotiable for generating high-quality, translatable data in female physiology research. The common practice of assuming cycle phases based on calendar calculations alone introduces significant error and undermines the validity of research findings [19]. By implementing the detailed experimental protocols and definitions outlined in this guide—centered on the direct measurement of LH surge and steroid hormone concentrations—researchers can significantly improve methodological rigor. This approach is fundamental to building a reliable evidence base for understanding the menstrual cycle's impact on health, disease, and athletic performance, and for informing the development of targeted therapeutics in drug development.

The systematic exclusion of women from clinical research has created significant knowledge gaps in understanding sex-specific responses to pharmacological treatments. This whitepaper examines the historical policies that limited female participation, analyzes current representation data, and explores the critical implications for drug safety and efficacy. Within the context of advancing menstrual cycle research, we demonstrate how inadequate consideration of female physiology—particularly cyclical hormonal variations—has compromised the evidence base for medical treatment in women. We provide researchers and drug development professionals with methodological frameworks and technical tools to integrate rigorous menstrual cycle monitoring into clinical trial design, thereby addressing longstanding disparities in biomedical research.

The historical focus on male subjects in clinical research has created a significant gender gap in medical evidence, particularly problematic for conditions that manifest differently in women or for drugs metabolized via sex-specific pathways. For decades, the standard practice in biomedical research utilized predominantly male populations, operating under the assumption that findings could be directly applied to females without modification [25]. This approach ignored fundamental biological differences in anatomy, genetics, hormonal balances, and organ systems that significantly influence disease presentation, pathophysiology, and therapeutic response [25].

The repercussions of this exclusion are particularly acute in fields like cardiology, where cardiovascular clinical trials predominantly focused on men due to the widespread misconception that heart disease was primarily a male condition [25]. This resulted in diagnostic standards and treatment guidelines developed without accounting for the distinct ways heart disease affects women, who often present with "atypical" symptoms such as fatigue, abdominal discomfort, and back or jaw pain [26]. The continued under-representation in some study groups persists despite policy changes, compromising the safety and efficacy of medical treatments for women [26].

Historical Policy Landscape

The formal exclusion of women from clinical trials can be traced to a 1977 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy that recommended excluding "women of childbearing potential" from Phase I and early Phase II drug trials [27]. This policy was remarkably broad, applying even to women who used contraception, were single, or whose husbands had undergone vasectomies [27]. This cautious approach emerged largely in response to the thalidomide tragedy, where thousands of women who took the sedative during pregnancy gave birth to children with severe limb deformities [27] [25].

The 1977 guidelines reflected a protective ethos but had the deleterious effect of creating a substantial data gap on how drugs affect women [25]. By the mid-1980s, increasing recognition of this problem led to changes. The 1985 report of the Public Health Service Task Force on Women's Health Issues recommended long-term research on factors affecting women's health [27]. In 1986, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a policy encouraging researchers to include women in studies [27].

A pivotal moment came in 1990, when a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation found that NIH's inclusion policies had been poorly communicated and inconsistently applied [27]. This led to the establishment of the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH). In 1993, Congress wrote the NIH inclusion policy into federal law through the NIH Revitalization Act, which mandated that NIH ensure women and minorities are included in all clinical research and that trials be designed to analyze differential effects [27].

Table 1: Evolution of Policies on Women in Clinical Research

Year	Policy/Action	Key Feature/Impact
1977	FDA Guidance	Banned women of childbearing potential from early-phase trials [27]
1986	NIH Policy	Encouraged inclusion of women in clinical studies [27]
1993	NIH Revitalization Act	Made inclusion of women in clinical research federal law [27]
2022	FDORA Diversity Action Plans	Required clinical trial sponsors to implement strategies for improving enrollment diversity [25]

Quantitative Analysis of Female Representation

Contemporary analyses reveal a complex picture of female representation in clinical trials. A structured, cross-sectional review of publicly available registration dossiers for FDA-approved drugs found that among 185,479 trial participants across 38 drugs, 47% were female and 44% were male, with gender not reported for 9% [28]. However, these aggregate figures mask significant variation across trial phases. Female participation was lowest in Phase I trials (22%), where safety and pharmacology are initially established, compared to 48% and 49% in Phase II and III trials respectively [28].

This disproportionate under-representation in early-phase trials is particularly concerning because Phase I studies establish fundamental parameters of drug metabolism, distribution, and excretion—processes known to differ significantly between sexes [25]. A 2022 large-scale analysis of 1,433 trials with over 300,000 participants found that, on average, only 41.2% of participants were female, indicating persistent disparities [25].

When compared with US disease prevalence data, approximately 26% of drugs (10 of 38 analyzed) demonstrated a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected by the disease and their representation in the corresponding clinical trials [28]. This mismatch between disease burden and trial participation creates evidentiary gaps with direct clinical consequences.

Table 2: Female Participation in Clinical Trials by Phase

Trial Phase	Primary Focus	Female Participation Rate	Implications of Under-Representation
Phase I	Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics	22% [28]	Inadequate data on sex differences in drug metabolism and initial dosing
Phase II	Therapeutic efficacy, side effects	48% [28]	Limited understanding of differential efficacy and side effect profiles
Phase III	Confirmatory testing, benefit-risk	49% [28]	Insufficient power for sex-specific subgroup analyses
Post-Market	Long-term effects, rare side effects	Varies widely	Delayed identification of sex-specific adverse drug reactions

Methodological Challenges in Menstrual Cycle Research

The historical exclusion of women from clinical trials means that methodological frameworks for accounting for menstrual cycle variations remain underdeveloped. The menstrual cycle is fundamentally a within-person process characterized by normative changes in physiological functioning driven by coordinated hormonal shifts [29]. These cyclical changes can confound study results if not properly accounted for in research design.

Defining Menstrual Cycle Phases

The menstrual cycle comprises coordinated ovarian and endometrial cycles with distinct phases. The ovarian cycle includes the follicular phase, ovulation, and luteal phase, while the endometrial cycle consists of the proliferative phase, secretory phase, and menstruation [4]. Normal menstrual frequency occurs every 24 to 38 days, with bleeding lasting 8 days or less [4].

Critically, the luteal phase has a more consistent length (average 13.3 days, SD = 2.1) than the follicular phase (average 15.7 days, SD = 3.0), with 69% of variance in total cycle length attributable to follicular phase variance [29]. This variability presents significant methodological challenges for researchers attempting to standardize measurements across participants.

Methodological Recommendations for Cycle Studies

To address these challenges, researchers should implement several key methodological practices:

• Within-Subject Designs: The menstrual cycle is fundamentally a within-person process and should be treated as such in experimental design. Repeated measures studies are the gold standard, while treating cycle phase as a between-subject variable lacks validity [29].

• Phase Verification: Relying solely on cycle day counting is insufficient for accurate phase determination. Ovulation confirmation through urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) testing or other validated methods is essential for precise phase classification [29].

• Sampling Density: For difficult-to-collect data such as psychophysiological or task-based outcomes, researchers should collect at least three observations per person across the cycle to estimate within-person effects meaningfully [29].

• Standardized Coding: Implementing consistent phase definitions is critical. Studies should clearly report criteria used for phase determination and ideally use established frameworks like the Carolina Premenstrual Assessment Scoring System (C-PASS) for identifying hormone-sensitive individuals [29].

Technical Framework for Integrating Menstrual Cycle Monitoring in Clinical Trials

Advanced Monitoring Technologies

Recent technological advances provide unprecedented opportunities for precise menstrual cycle monitoring in clinical research settings:

• Wearable Sensors: Devices like the Oura ring, EmbracePlus, and Tempdrop continuously measure physiological parameters including skin temperature, heart rate (HR), interbeat interval (IBI), and electrodermal activity (EDA). Machine learning models applied to these data streams have achieved up to 87% accuracy in classifying three menstrual phases (period, ovulation, luteal) using random forest classifiers [6].

• Quantitative Hormone Monitors: At-home urine hormone monitors (e.g., Mira monitor) measure follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estrone-3-glucuronide (E13G), luteinizing hormone (LH), and pregnanediol glucuronide (PDG). These devices can predict and confirm ovulation when validated against serial ultrasonography [30].

• Multimodal Integration: Combining temperature tracking with urinary hormone detection significantly improves ovulation prediction accuracy. The OvuSense vaginal temperature sensor demonstrated 99% accuracy for detecting ovulation and 89% accuracy for predicting it when integrated with hormone monitoring [6].

Experimental Protocol for Cycle-Integrated Clinical Trials

For clinical trials including premenopausal women, we propose the following standardized protocol:

• Cycle Documentation: Participants should prospectively track menstrual bleeding dates for at least two complete cycles before study initiation using validated digital platforms or paper diaries.

• Ovulation Confirmation: For studies where precise cycle phase determination is critical, confirm ovulation using urinary LH tests or quantitative hormone monitors during the study period.

• Assessment Scheduling: Schedule study assessments based on confirmed cycle phase rather than cycle day alone, with particular attention to hormonally distinct phases (early follicular, periovulatory, mid-luteal).

• Data Analysis: Incorporate cycle phase as a covariate in statistical models and conduct sensitivity analyses to examine potential phase-dependent treatment effects.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials for Cycle-Integrated Research

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Menstrual Cycle Monitoring

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
Urinary Hormone Assays	Mira Monitor, Clearblue Fertility Monitor, Proov Confirm, Inito	Quantitative measurement of LH, FSH, estrogen, progesterone metabolites; ovulation confirmation and phase tracking	Requires validation against serum levels and ultrasound; consider cycle day timing for collection [8] [30]
Wearable Sensors	Oura Ring, Tempdrop, Ava, EmbracePlus, Empatica E4	Continuous measurement of skin temperature, heart rate variability, sleep metrics; automated phase prediction	Machine learning algorithms can achieve 68-90% phase classification accuracy; requires individual calibration [6]
Digital Tracking Platforms	Carolina Premenstrual Assessment Scoring System (C-PASS), custom mobile apps	Prospective symptom monitoring, cycle logging, phase calculation	Essential for identifying hormone-sensitive participants (e.g., PMDD); reduces recall bias [29]
Reference Standards	Transvaginal ultrasonography, serum hormone panels, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)	Gold standard validation of ovulation timing, follicular development, hormone correlations	Labor-intensive and costly; used for validating at-home methods in research settings [30]

The historical exclusion of women from clinical trials has created profound knowledge gaps in our understanding of sex-specific responses to pharmacological treatments. While policy changes have improved female representation in later-phase trials, significant methodological challenges remain in adequately accounting for female physiology—particularly the menstrual cycle's hormonal variations.

Integrating rigorous menstrual cycle monitoring into clinical trial design represents a crucial step toward personalized medicine for women. The availability of sophisticated monitoring technologies—including wearable sensors and quantitative hormone assays—now provides researchers with practical tools to address these historical disparities. By adopting the methodological frameworks and technical protocols outlined in this whitepaper, drug development professionals can generate robust, sex-specific evidence to ensure medical treatments are safe and effective for all populations.

Future research should focus on validating monitoring technologies in diverse populations, including those with irregular cycles due to conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or athletic training. Additionally, regulatory guidance should continue evolving to mandate both the inclusion of women in clinical trials and the analysis of sex-specific and cycle-phase-specific treatment effects. Only through such comprehensive approaches can we fully address the knowledge gaps created by decades of exclusion and build an evidence base that truly serves all patients.

The historical paradigm of medicating women identically to men, or assuming uniform drug pharmacokinetics across the female reproductive cycle, is being fundamentally challenged by contemporary research. Biological sex and the cyclical hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle are now recognized as significant determinants of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) [31]. Despite physiological and hormonal differences between males and females that can significantly alter pharmacotherapy outcomes, most current pharmacotherapeutic guidelines remain sex-neutral [31]. This oversight is particularly problematic given that hormonal fluctuations of the normal menstruation process alter women's physiology and brain biochemistry, potentially requiring different medication doses at different menstrual cycle phases [32].

The challenge is further compounded by a critical lack of standardization in how the menstrual cycle is defined in scientific literature. Research reveals substantial inconsistency in the classification of menstrual cycle phases, with studies indicating anywhere from 2 to 7 distinct phases with different nomenclature [33]. This absence of consensus creates significant methodological challenges for comparing findings across studies and developing coherent clinical guidelines. Until the scientific community establishes a uniform approach, the results of all studies including female participants must be interpreted with caution [33]. This whitepaper examines the current evidence linking hormonal fluctuations to drug metabolism and efficacy, framed within the pressing need for standardized menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature in clinical research.

Hormonal Regulation of the Menstrual Cycle

Phases and Endocrine Control

The menstrual cycle comprises a complex interplay of hormonal signals between the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and ovaries, resulting in cyclical changes in both the ovarian and endometrial compartments. The cycle is typically divided into several phases, though as noted, the specific number and nomenclature vary considerably in the literature [33].

• Follicular Phase: This phase begins with the first day of menstruation (day 1) and is characterized by the development of primary follicles in the ovary under the influence of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). The developing follicles, particularly the dominant Graafian follicle, produce increasing amounts of estrogen, primarily estradiol, which stimulates proliferation and regeneration of the endometrial lining [34].
• Ovulatory Phase: A surge in luteinizing hormone (LH), triggered by high estrogen levels, causes the rupture of the Graafian follicle and release of the oocyte (ovulation) around day 14 of a 28-day cycle [34].
• Luteal Phase: Following ovulation, the ruptured follicle transforms into the corpus luteum, which secretes large quantities of progesterone and smaller amounts of estrogen. Progesterone promotes secretory changes in the endometrium, preparing it for potential implantation. If pregnancy does not occur, the corpus luteum regresses, leading to a sharp decline in progesterone and estrogen and the onset of menstruation [34].

The Problem of Phase Definition in Research

A systematic analysis of menstrual cycle classifications in sports science literature reveals a striking lack of consensus among researchers. Studies employ vastly different models, ranging from simple 2-phase divisions (follicular and luteal) to highly detailed 7-phase models that further subdivide the follicular and luteal phases [33]. Expert opinions also differ significantly in their adherence to ovarian cycle terminology versus uterine cycle terminology or mixed variants [33]. This inconsistency presents a fundamental challenge for pharmacological research, as comparing drug metabolism studies that use different cycle phase definitions becomes methodologically problematic.

Table 1: Variability in Menstrual Cycle Phase Classifications in Scientific Literature

Number of Phases Identified	Nomenclature Examples	Representative Studies
2 Phases	Follicular Phase, Luteal Phase	Homer et al. (2024) [33]
3 Phases	Early Follicular, Late Follicular, Mid-Luteal	Romero-Parra et al. (2021), Thompson et al. (2021) [33]
3 Phases (Alternative)	Follicular, Ovulatory, Luteal	Tucker et al. (2024) [33]
4 Phases	Late Follicular, Ovulation, Luteal, Menstruation	Bruinvels et al. (2022) [33]
6 Phases	Early/Late Follicular, Ovulation, Early/Mid/Late Luteal	D'Souza et al. (2023), Niering et al. (2024) [33]
7 Phases	Early/Mid/Late Follicular, Ovulation, Early/Mid/Late Luteal	Elliott-Sale et al. (2021) [33]

Physiological Changes and Their Pharmacokinetic Implications

Menstrual Cycle Effects on Drug Disposition

Hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle can influence drug pharmacokinetics through multiple physiological mechanisms. Estrogen and progesterone variations affect systems including renal, cardiovascular, haematological, and immune function, which in turn can alter drug properties such as protein binding or volume of distribution [35].

• Absorption: Females tend to have slower gastric emptying than males, which can impact drug absorption [31]. Furthermore, endogenous or exogenous hormonal fluctuation can slightly affect gastric motility, though systematic investigations are limited [31].
• Distribution: Females generally have a higher body fat composition compared to males, which can increase the volume of distribution for lipophilic drugs and potentially prolong their half-life [31].
• Metabolism: Sex differences in cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity are particularly significant. CYP3A4 is typically more active in females, while CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1 show greater activity in males [31]. These differences influence drug half-life, systemic exposure, and the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
• Excretion: Females have a lower glomerular filtration rate on average than males, which can affect the clearance of renally excreted drugs [31].

Table 2: Sex-Based Differences in Pharmacokinetic Parameters Influencing Drug Metabolism

Pharmacokinetic Phase	Key Physiological Differences in Females	Impact on Drug Disposition
Absorption	Slower gastric emptying; hormonal influences on gastric motility [31]	Potential for altered rate and extent of drug absorption
Distribution	Higher body fat percentage (↑ adipose tissue) [31]	Increased volume of distribution for lipophilic drugs; potential for prolonged half-life
Metabolism	↑ CYP3A4 activity; ↓ CYP1A2, CYP2D6, CYP2E1 activity compared to males [31]	Altered clearance of substrate drugs; potential for sex-dependent dosing requirements
Excretion	Lower glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [31]	Reduced clearance of renally excreted drugs; potential for drug accumulation

Cycle Phase-Specific Metabolic Variations

Emerging evidence suggests that within-female variation across the menstrual cycle can alter drug clearance for susceptible medications. Research indicates that estrogen can increase the activity of certain CYP enzymes, potentially leading to enhanced metabolism of specific drugs during particular cycle phases [36]. For example, drugs like diazepam and theophylline may be metabolized more quickly during the follicular phase when estrogen levels are lower. Conversely, in the luteal phase, when estrogen and progesterone levels peak, the metabolism of these drugs may slow down, leading to higher plasma concentrations and potential toxicity [36]. However, data remain sparse and sometimes contradictory, highlighting the need for more systematic research with standardized cycle phase definitions [35].

Hormonal Impact on Drug Metabolism Pathways

Cytochrome P450 Modulation

The liver is the primary organ responsible for drug metabolism, where cytochrome P450 enzymes break down medications into active or inactive forms. The activities of these enzymes are modulated by hormonal changes throughout a woman's life [36]. Estrogen and progesterone fluctuations during the menstrual cycle influence the expression and activity of these drug-metabolizing enzymes, creating a dynamic pharmacokinetic environment [31] [36]. For instance, the impairment of caffeine clearance by chronic use of low-dose estrogen-containing oral contraceptives demonstrates the potential for estrogen to inhibit CYP1A2 activity [31]. Similarly, low-dose estrogen-containing oral contraceptives have been shown to impair the metabolism of diazepam and imipramine [31].

Beyond Metabolism: Therapeutic Implications

Hormonal influences extend beyond pharmacokinetics to therapeutic drug responses. In psychiatric practice, women with schizophrenia often exhibit cyclical patterns of symptom exacerbation, frequently during the premenstrual and menstrual periods when estrogen levels are low [32]. This catamenial pattern of psychosis suggests that the effective dose of antipsychotic medication may need to be higher during certain cycle phases. One case study documented a patient who required flexible dosing of olanzapine, with higher doses (10-15 mg/day) used perimenstrually and lower doses (5 mg/day) during the follicular phase to balance efficacy and side effects [32]. This real-world example underscores the potential need for cycle-aware dosing strategies for conditions with menstruation-related clinical fluctuations.

Extreme Hormonal States: Pregnancy and Menopause

Pregnancy-Induced Pharmacokinetic Changes

Pregnancy represents a state of profound hormonal alteration that significantly impacts drug metabolism. During pregnancy, the body undergoes numerous physiological adaptations, including dramatically increased levels of estrogen and progesterone, which can lead to substantial changes in liver enzyme activity [36] [37]. A 2025 study comprehensively mapped the dynamic changes of estrogen and progesterone metabolites throughout pregnancy, showing that levels of estrone, estradiol, estriol, and several other metabolites gradually increase during pregnancy, while others like 2-hydroxyestrone and 2-hydroxyestradiol decrease rapidly in early pregnancy and maintain lower levels [37].

These hormonal changes are accompanied by physiological adaptations including increased plasma volume and elevated glomerular filtration rate, with predictable effects on renally cleared drugs and selected hepatic pathways [31]. Consequently, some medications may accumulate due to reduced clearance, while others may become less effective due to enhanced metabolism. This variability necessitates close therapeutic drug monitoring in pregnant women to ensure optimal outcomes for both mother and fetus [36].

Menopausal Transition

Menopause introduces another significant hormonal shift characterized by a marked decline in estrogen levels. This reduction can impact drug metabolism in various ways, potentially altering drug clearance rates and leading to the accumulation of certain medications [36]. For instance, medications such as antidepressants and antihypertensives may require careful dose adjustments in postmenopausal women to avoid adverse effects. The decline in estrogen also affects the metabolism of lipophilic drugs, potentially changing their distribution and elimination, which could lead to prolonged drug action and increased risk of side effects [36].

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Research Reagent Solutions for Hormonal and Metabolic Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating Hormonal Effects on Drug Metabolism

Reagent / Material	Specific Example	Research Application & Function
Enzyme Preparation	β-Glucuronidase/sulfatase from Helix pomatia (Type H-2) [37]	Enzymatic deconjugation of hormone and drug metabolites in urine prior to UPLC-MS/MS analysis
Internal Standards	E2-d3 (Deuterated Estradiol), Progesterone-d9 [37]	Mass spectrometry internal standards for quantification of endogenous hormones; correct for matrix effects and recovery
Hormone Standards	Estrone (E1), Estradiol (E2), Progesterone, 17α-Hydroxy Progesterone [37]	Reference standards for calibration curves and method validation in hormone quantification assays
Sample Collection	Dried Blood Spot (DBS) Cards [38]	Convenient and stable biological sample collection for verifying menstrual cycle phase and compliance
Chromatography System	Ultrahigh Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) [37]	High-resolution separation of complex biological samples (urine, serum) for hormone and metabolite profiling
Detection Instrument	Tandem Mass Spectrometer (MS/MS) [37]	Highly sensitive and specific detection and quantification of hormone metabolites and drugs

Methodological Considerations for Cycle-Based Studies

Investigating drug metabolism across the menstrual cycle requires rigorous methodological approaches. The LUMO trial, a multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial investigating luteal phase support in fertility treatment, exemplifies a high-quality design with double-blinding to eliminate bias, adequate powering (1008 patients), and precise definition of intervention timing [39]. For pharmacokinetic studies, precise bioverification of menstrual cycle phase is crucial, as self-reporting alone may be insufficient. Methods can include tracking basal body temperature, using urinary LH kits to detect ovulation, or serum hormone measurements [35] [38]. Dried blood spots can be used to biochemically verify both menstrual cycle phase and drug or metabolite levels [38].

Clinical Applications and Future Directions

Toward Personalized, Cycle-Aware Pharmacotherapy

The evidence for menstrual cycle influences on drug metabolism and efficacy underscores the need for a more personalized approach to pharmacotherapy in women of reproductive age. The case of the patient with schizophrenia who successfully implemented self-titration of antipsychotic medication based on her menstrual cycle demonstrates the potential clinical benefits of such an approach [32]. Similarly, ongoing research is exploring whether timing smoking cessation attempts to specific menstrual cycle phases (e.g., setting a quit date in the mid-follicular phase) may improve quit outcomes for women [38].

Future clinical trials including women of reproductive age should routinely incorporate standardized menstrual cycle phase definitions and analyses. As called for in recent literature, integrating sex-specific data into clinical guidelines is essential to optimize drug efficacy and minimize adverse drug reactions [31]. This will require regulatory action to promote sex-aware pharmacological practices and encourage the routine inclusion of sex analyses in clinical trials [31].

Consensus Building for Standardized Research

The fundamental challenge of inconsistent menstrual cycle phase nomenclature must be addressed to advance this field. As identified in the analysis of classifications in sports science, there is a clear need for consensus on the number and naming of menstrual cycle phases [33]. Future research should aim to establish standardized definitions that can be consistently applied across pharmacological studies. This would enable more meaningful comparisons between studies and facilitate meta-analyses that could detect subtle but clinically significant cycle-phase effects on drug metabolism. Until such consensus is reached, researchers should explicitly report their criteria for phase definition and consider measuring and reporting hormone levels to enable post-hoc analyses based on hormonal status rather than calendar day alone.

Hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle significantly influence drug metabolism and efficacy through multiple mechanisms, including modulation of cytochrome P450 enzyme activity, alterations in body composition, and changes in renal function. The real-world impact of these fluctuations is evident in case reports of patients requiring cycle-dependent medication dosing and in studies showing phase-dependent variability in drug clearance. However, progress in this field is hampered by the lack of standardized definitions for menstrual cycle phases across research studies. Future work must prioritize establishing consensus nomenclature while simultaneously expanding clinical trials to include sex-specific analyses and cycle-phase considerations. Only through such concerted efforts can we achieve truly personalized medicine for women that accounts for their dynamic hormonal physiology throughout the reproductive lifespan.

Best Practices in Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination for Clinical Research

For decades, research involving the female menstrual cycle has relied on simplistic calendar-based counting methods to define cycle phases. This approach assumes consistent hormonal profiles across individuals based on cycle day, despite significant biological variability. This technical review examines the methodological flaws inherent in calendar-based phase estimation, critiques its impact on scientific validity, and presents direct measurement alternatives. Framed within the broader need for nomenclature consensus in menstrual cycle research, we detail standardized protocols for hormone verification, outline emerging technological solutions, and provide a research toolkit for implementing rigorous, evidence-based cycle phase determination in scientific and clinical settings.

The Physiological Basis for Calendar Method Flaws

The menstrual cycle is characterized by complex, inter-related hormonal fluctuations that display substantial variability both between individuals and within an individual across cycles. The calendar-based method typically involves counting days from the onset of menses (cycle day 1) and assigning phase labels (e.g., follicular, luteal) based on presumed average hormonal profiles for those days [29]. This approach is fundamentally flawed because it substitutes a direct measurement of endocrine status for an indirect estimation, effectively guessing the occurrence and timing of ovarian hormone fluctuations [19].

The core assumption that cycle day reliably predicts underlying hormonal milieu is physiologically unsound for several reasons:

• Follicular Phase Variability: The follicular phase is the primary contributor to variance in total cycle length. While the luteal phase is relatively consistent (average 13.3 days, SD = 2.1), the follicular phase is highly variable (average 15.7 days, SD = 3.0), meaning ovulation—and the ensuing hormonal shifts—can occur across a wide window [29].
• Prevalence of Subtle Disturbances: Menstrual cycles with regular bleeding and cycle lengths do not guarantee normal ovulatory function. Anovulatory cycles (where no ovulation occurs) and luteal phase deficiency (insufficient progesterone production) are common, particularly in exercising females (prevalence up to 66%) [19] [40]. Calendar counting cannot detect these disturbances, which have meaningful physiological consequences.
• Hormone Ratio Dynamics: The effects of ovarian hormones are not isolated; they depend on dynamic ratios and interactions between estradiol and progesterone. Calendar-based approaches cannot capture the intricate, non-linear dynamics of these hormonal interactions [40].

Table 1: Key Sources of Variability Undermining Calendar-Based Methods

Source of Variability	Description	Impact on Phase Determination
Inter-individual Variation	Healthy cycle lengths range from 21 to 35 days; follicular phase length differs significantly between women [29].	A "one-size-fits-all" day assignment does not align with biological reality across a population.
Intra-individual Variation	A single woman's cycle length and hormonal profile can vary from month to due to factors like energy balance, stress, and exercise [40].	Phase assignment based on a previous cycle's timing is unreliable for the current cycle.
Occult Anovulation	Ovulation does not occur in some cycles despite the presence of menstrual bleeding [19].	Calendar methods misclassify anovulatory cycles as hormonally normal, introducing significant error.
Uncertain Ovulation Timing	The day of ovulation can only be confirmed retrospectively via hormonal shift or ultrasound [30].	Prospective phase assignment is inherently guesswork without direct, concurrent measurement.

Methodological Consequences and Scientific Impact

Relying on assumed or estimated cycle phases compromises the internal and external validity of research findings. This practice has created a body of evidence with limited replicability and questionable scientific rigor, particularly in fields like exercise physiology and sports science [19].

Compromised Data Integrity and Interpretation

Using assumed menstrual cycle phases is neither a valid nor reliable methodological approach [19]. Validity is compromised because the method does not accurately measure the intended construct—the underlying hormonal environment. Reliability suffers because the same calendar day can correspond to vastly different hormonal states across different women or different cycles in the same woman. This misclassification dilutes effect sizes, increases background noise, and obscures true physiological relationships between hormone status and outcome measures, from cognitive performance to athletic output [41].

Challenges in Cross-Study Comparisons

Inconsistent phase designation methods across studies substantially limit the ability to compare and synthesize research findings [42]. The literature is characterized by major discrepancies, with studies dividing the cycle into anywhere from two to seven phases and designating phases of varying lengths (e.g., the premenstrual phase defined as either 3 or 5 days prior to menses) [42]. This lack of standardization, rooted in the flexibility of calendar-based counting, frustrates attempts at systematic review and meta-analysis, slowing the accumulation of knowledge [29].

Establishing a Gold Standard: Direct Measurement Methodologies

To overcome the limitations of calendar counting, the research community must adopt verification methods that directly measure biomarkers of ovarian activity. The following protocols represent a hierarchy of methodological rigor.

Protocol 1: Urinary Hormone Monitoring with Ultrasound Confirmation

This protocol establishes the highest standard for validating quantitative at-home hormone monitors against clinical gold standards [30].

Objective: To characterize quantitative urine hormone patterns and validate them against serum hormonal measurements and the ultrasound-defined day of ovulation.

Experimental Workflow:

Key Measurements:

• Urine Hormones: Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH), Estrone-3-Glucuronide (E1G), Luteinizing Hormone (LH), Pregnanediol Gluronide (PDG) via Mira monitor [30].
• Ultrasound Gold Standard: Serial transvaginal ultrasounds to track follicular development and confirm the estimated day of ovulation (EDO) [30].
• Serum Correlation: Periodic blood draws to correlate serum levels of E2, P4, LH, and FSH with urine metabolite concentrations [30].

This protocol allows for the external validation of at-home quantitative monitors, moving beyond manufacturer-reported internal data. It is particularly crucial for establishing reliable hormone patterns in populations with irregular cycles, such as those with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) or athletes [30].

Protocol 2: Serum Hormone Assay for Phase Verification

For laboratory-based studies requiring high precision in phase determination, serial serum hormone measurement remains a benchmark.

Objective: To confirm menstrual cycle phase for research participants through direct measurement of serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4).

Phase Definitions & Hormonal Criteria:

• Early Follicular Phase: Low, stable E2 and P4. Testing occurs within 7 days after the onset of menses [43] [29].
• Periovulatory Phase: Characterized by the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and a peak in E2 just prior to ovulation. Can be identified with an ovulation prediction kit [43].
• Mid-Luteal Phase: Peak P4 and a secondary rise in E2. Testing should occur 7–9 days after a detected LH surge to ensure adequate P4 levels and exclude anovulatory cycles [40] [29].

Statistical Consideration: Researchers should decide a priori upon their hormonal phase-based boundaries and clearly define these within their methodology, as inconsistencies exist in the literature [19].

Table 2: Direct Hormonal Verification Methods for Research

Method	Procedure	Key Biomarkers	Advantages	Limitations
Serum Hormone Assay	Venous blood draw with laboratory analysis of hormone concentrations.	Estradiol (E2), Progesterone (P4), Luteinizing Hormone (LH)	High accuracy; considered a clinical reference standard.	Invasive; expensive; not feasible for daily at-home use.
Quantitative Urine Hormone Monitor	At-home device analyzes urine test strips for hormone metabolites.	LH, Pregnanediol Gluronide (PDG), Estrone-3-Glucuronide (E1G), FSH	Provides numerical values; allows dense longitudinal data collection in ecologically valid settings.	Requires validation against serum and ultrasound; cost of consumables.
Urine LH Surge Detection	Qualitative over-the-counter ovulation predictor kits (OPKs).	Luteinizing Hormone (LH)	Inexpensive; easy to use; accurately identifies the LH surge.	Does not confirm ovulation or adequacy of progesterone; provides limited phase information.

Emerging Technologies and Analytical Approaches

Technological advancements are providing new tools for moving beyond calendar-based estimation, offering less invasive and more continuous monitoring solutions.

Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning

Machine learning models applied to physiological data from wearables show significant promise for automated, non-invasive phase tracking.

Methodology: A 2025 study collected data from 65 ovulatory cycles using wrist-worn devices (E4 and EmbracePlus) that recorded skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval, and heart rate [6]. Random forest models were trained to classify menstrual phases.

Performance: Using a leave-last-cycle-out approach, the model achieved 87% accuracy (AUC-ROC: 0.96) in classifying three phases (period, ovulation, luteal). For more granular, daily tracking of four phases (period, follicular, ovulation, luteal), accuracy was 68% (AUC-ROC: 0.77) [6].

This approach reduces participant burden and can provide continuous, objective data, enabling researchers to move beyond discrete phase classifications.

Standardized Data Processing for Longitudinal Analysis

Variability in cycle length poses a challenge for analyzing longitudinal data. Two standardization methods have been developed to address this [42]:

• Phasic Standardization: Holds the menstrual, follicular, and ovulatory phases at fixed lengths, while allowing the luteal phase to vary based on the individual's total cycle length. This enables the analysis of phase-related changes while accounting for individual variability in luteal phase length [42].
• Continuous Standardization: Standardizes all phases, including the luteal phase, to fixed lengths. This allows for the exploration of variables continuously across the cycle day, preventing the loss of daily-level information that occurs when data is collapsed into phases [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Transitioning to verified cycle tracking requires specific tools and reagents. The following table details essential materials for implementing direct measurement protocols.

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Verified Menstrual Cycle Tracking

Item	Function in Research	Specific Examples / Notes
Urine Hormone Monitor	Quantifies concentrations of reproductive hormone metabolites in urine at home. Provides dense longitudinal data.	Mira Fertility Monitor (measures FSH, E1G, LH, PDG) [8] [30]; Inito Fertility Monitor; Clearblue Fertility Monitor.
Urine LH Test Strips	Detects the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge to prospectively identify the onset of ovulation.	Qualitative over-the-counter ovulation prediction kits (OPKs). Critical for timing luteal-phase lab visits [29].
Wearable Sensor	Continuously collects physiological data (e.g., skin temperature, heart rate) for machine learning-based phase prediction.	Empatica E4 [6]; Oura Ring [6]; Tempdrop [8].
Serum ELISA Kits	Measures absolute concentrations of estradiol, progesterone, and LH from blood serum in a lab setting.	Requires venipuncture and laboratory facilities. The gold standard for single-time-point hormone assessment [29].
Salivary Progesterone Kits	A less invasive alternative to serum for confirming ovulation and luteal phase adequacy.	Salivary progesterone levels correlate with serum levels and can be used to confirm ovulatory cycles [19].
Standardized Symptom Charting App	Facilitates prospective daily tracking of bleeding, symptoms, and other cycle-related data.	Apps like "Read Your Body" [8] that allow custom tracking without proprietary algorithms.

The continued use of calendar-based methods for menstrual cycle phase determination is a significant methodological weakness that undermines scientific progress. It is a practice rooted in convenience that ignores fundamental physiological variability and the high prevalence of subtle menstrual disturbances. The research community must uniformly adopt a gold standard approach that relies on direct measurement of hormonal status via urine hormone monitors, serum assays, or validated wearable technologies, rather than estimations.

Achieving a consensus on phase nomenclature and verification criteria is essential for generating comparable, replicable, and meaningful data. By implementing the detailed protocols and tools outlined in this review—from urinary hormone monitoring with ultrasound validation to standardized data analysis techniques—researchers can significantly improve the quality of female-focused research. This methodological rigor is a prerequisite for building a valid understanding of how the menstrual cycle influences health, disease, and human performance.

In the evolving landscape of women's health research, particularly in drug development and scientific studies, precise determination of menstrual cycle phases has emerged as a fundamental methodological requirement. The menstrual cycle represents a complex interplay of hormonal fluctuations that can significantly influence physiological parameters, pharmacological responses, and clinical outcomes. Despite this recognition, a concerning trend has emerged in research practice: the replacement of direct hormonal measurements with assumed or estimated cycle phases based solely on calendar calculations or menstrual bleeding patterns [19] [44]. This approach amounts to guessing the occurrence and timing of ovarian hormone fluctuations and risks potentially significant implications for interpreting female-specific data [19].

The gold standard for ovulation confirmation remains transvaginal ultrasonic visualization combined with serial serum hormone testing [45] [46]. However, these methods are often impractical for field-based studies or large-scale clinical trials. Consequently, researchers are increasingly validating alternative approaches, including urinary hormone monitors and salivary assays, against these reference standards [45] [47]. This technical guide examines the current evidence and methodologies for direct hormonal phase confirmation, providing researchers with frameworks for implementing rigorous menstrual cycle monitoring in scientific investigations.

Methodological Foundations: Defining Menstrual Cycle Phases

Physiological Basis for Phase Determination

The menstrual cycle is characterized by three inter-related cycles: ovarian, hormonal, and endometrial [19]. For research purposes, the hormonal cycle provides the most relevant basis for phase determination, with fluctuations in key hormones dictating phase transitions:

• Follicular Phase: Begins with menses onset and continues through ovulation, characterized by rising estradiol (E2) and consistently low progesterone (P4) [29]
• Ovulation: Triggered by a surge in luteinizing hormone (LH), resulting in oocyte release [45]
• Luteal Phase: Post-ovulation phase characterized by rising P4 and a secondary peak in E2 produced by the corpus luteum [29]

Critically, the presence of menses and regular cycle length (21-35 days) does not guarantee a eumenorrheic hormonal profile [19]. Studies have demonstrated that subtle menstrual disturbances, including anovulatory or luteal phase deficient cycles, can occur despite regular bleeding patterns, with a prevalence of up to 66% in exercising females [19].

Limitations of Calendar-Based and Symptothermal Approaches

Calendar-based methods that count days between periods fail to account for substantial inter-individual variability in cycle characteristics. Even among regularly cycling women, only 69% of variance in total cycle length can be attributed to follicular phase length, with just 3% attributed to luteal phase length [29]. This variability makes calendar-based phase estimation highly unreliable for research purposes.

The assumption that "menstruation is a clear-cut point" that enables easy determination of the premenstrual phase is problematic because the occurrence and timing of ovulation and sufficient progesterone determine the ovarian hormone profile in the late luteal phase [19]. Without confirmation of these events, the premenstrual phase represents an assumption rather than a hormonally verified state.

Gold Standard Methodologies for Phase Confirmation

Reference Standards: Serum Hormones and Ultrasonography

The unequivocal gold standard for ovulation confirmation remains serial transvaginal ultrasonography combined with serum hormonal measurements [45] [46]. This approach provides direct visualization of follicular development and endometrial changes correlated with hormonal status.

Table 1: Gold Standard Methodologies for Menstrual Cycle Phase Confirmation

Method	Measured Parameters	Phase Determination Capability	Practical Limitations
Serial Transvaginal Ultrasound	Follicle size, endometrial thickness, corpus luteum visualization	Definitive ovulation confirmation; follicular and luteal phase tracking	Labor-intensive; requires specialized equipment and technicians; participant burden
Serum Hormone Sampling	E2, P4, LH, FSH concentrations via immunoassay or LC-MS/MS	Precise hormonal profiling across all phases; confirms ovulatory cycle	Invasive venipuncture; requires clinical facilities; expensive for frequent sampling
Combined Ultrasound + Serum	Structural and hormonal correlation	Highest accuracy for phase determination; research gold standard	Maximum resource intensity; limited to specialized research settings

The Quantum Menstrual Health Monitoring Study exemplifies the application of these gold standards, using serial ultrasounds in a community clinic setting to confirm the day of ovulation, referenced against serum hormone values [45] [30]. This study aims to validate quantitative urine hormone patterns against these reference standards.

Validated Alternative Approaches

While serum and ultrasound represent the ideal reference, practical constraints have driven the development and validation of alternative methods for field-based and large-scale studies.

Urinary Hormone Metabolite Monitoring

Quantitative urinary hormone monitors measure metabolites of key reproductive hormones, including:

• Luteinizing Hormone (LH): Predicts impending ovulation via detection of the LH surge [45]
• Pregnanediol Glucuronide (PDG): Confirms ovulation and luteal phase adequacy [45]
• Estrone-3-Glucuronide (E13G): Tracks estrogen rise during follicular development [45]
• Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH): Assesses follicular phase initiation [45]

Devices such as the Mira monitor provide quantitative values for these hormones along with predictive algorithms in accompanying smartphone apps [45]. The ongoing validation studies aim to establish correlation between urine hormone patterns and gold standard measures [45] [30].

Salivary Hormone Analysis

Salivary hormone testing offers a non-invasive alternative for measuring bioavailable (unbound) steroid hormones. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) provides sensitive detection of salivary hormones, though concentrations are typically lower than in serum [47].

Salivary transcriptome analysis represents an emerging approach, with studies detecting differentially expressed genes in saliva samples from users of hormonal contraceptives [47]. This method shows promise for identifying exposure to exogenous hormones, though further validation is needed for natural cycle monitoring.

Experimental Protocols for Phase Verification

Comprehensive Phase Determination Protocol

For research requiring precise phase determination, the following integrated protocol provides methodological rigor:

Participant Selection Criteria:

• Regularly menstruating participants aged 18-45
• Consistent cycle lengths between 24-38 days (regular group) or documented irregular cycles for special populations (PCOS, athletes)
• Negative pregnancy test at beginning and end of each cycle
• Exclusion of medications known to impair or stimulate ovulation (e.g., oral contraceptives) within previous 3 months [45]

Phase Determination Methodology:

• Cycle Day Tracking: Document first day of menses (Cycle Day 1) for consecutive cycles
• Urinary Hormone Monitoring: Begin daily testing with quantitative hormone monitor from Cycle Day 7
• LH Surge Identification: Increase testing to twice daily when E13G levels rise to detect LH surge
• Ovulation Confirmation: Serial ultrasounds every 1-2 days during periovulatory period until follicular rupture observed
• Luteal Phase Verification: Continued PDG monitoring to confirm adequate luteal phase function
• Serum Correlation: Periodic serum samples correlated with urine hormone measurements and ultrasound findings [45] [30]

This protocol is designed to characterize quantitative hormone patterns in urine and validate these against serum hormonal measurements and the ultrasound day of ovulation [45].

Machine Learning Approaches for Phase Prediction

Emerging methodologies apply machine learning to physiological signals recorded from wearable devices. One recent study achieved 87% accuracy in classifying three menstrual phases (period, ovulation, luteal) using a random forest model analyzing skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval, and heart rate [6].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Menstrual Phase Classification Methods

Classification Method	Physiological Parameters	Number of Phases Identified	Accuracy	AUC-ROC
Random Forest (Fixed Window)	Skin temperature, EDA, IBI, HR	3 (Period, Ovulation, Luteal)	87%	0.96
Random Forest (Sliding Window)	Skin temperature, EDA, IBI, HR	4 (Period, Follicular, Ovulation, Luteal)	68%	0.77
RBF Network	ECG-derived HRV features	3 (Follicular, Ovulation, Luteal)	95%	-
Temperature + HR Model	Wrist temperature, heart rate	Fertile window prediction	87.46% (regular cycles)	-

While these automated approaches show promise for reducing participant burden, they currently require validation against direct hormonal measures and should be considered supplemental rather than primary verification methods in research contexts.

Analytical Considerations and Method Validation

Assay Performance and Quality Metrics

When implementing hormonal assessment methods, researchers must consider key analytical performance characteristics:

• Specificity: Ability to detect intended hormone without cross-reactivity with similar compounds [47]
• Sensitivity: Lowest detectable concentration of the hormone [47]
• Precision: Intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) [46]

Salivary and urinary assays present particular challenges due to lower hormone concentrations compared to serum. For example, one study of urinary levonorgestrel (LNG) detection demonstrated 100% sensitivity using a DetectX immunoassay kit, with specificity of 100% at baseline [47].

Method Comparison and Validation Strategies

A scoping review of salivary and urinary methodologies highlighted inconsistencies in phase definitions and reporting of validity measures across studies [46]. To ensure methodological rigor:

• Establish correlation between alternative methods and gold standards within your study population
• Report both raw and converted hormone values with clear units
• Document assay precision metrics including intra-assay CV
• Clearly define hormonal thresholds for phase transitions a priori

The complexities of salivary and urinary methodology necessitate transparent reporting of validation procedures, particularly when studying populations with hormonal variations such as PCOS or athletes [46].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination

Research Tool	Specific Examples	Application in Phase Determination
Quantitative Urine Hormone Monitor	Mira fertility monitor, Clearblue Fertility Monitor	At-home tracking of LH, E3G, PDG, FSH patterns for ovulation prediction and confirmation
Urinary LH Detection Kits	Immunoassay-based dipstick tests	Identification of LH surge for ovulation prediction
Salivary Hormone Kits	LC-MS/MS salivary hormone panels	Measurement of bioavailable estradiol and progesterone
Serum Hormone Assays	Immunoassays, LC-MS/MS platforms	Gold standard quantification of E2, P4, LH, FSH
Wearable Physiological Monitors	E4 wristband, EmbracePlus, Oura ring	Continuous measurement of skin temperature, HR, HRV, EDA for machine learning approaches
Point-of-Care Ultrasound	Portable ultrasound systems with transvaginal probes	Follicle tracking and ovulation confirmation in clinical settings

Visualizing Methodological Approaches

The following diagram illustrates the integrated methodological approach for gold standard menstrual cycle phase confirmation:

Integrated Methodology for Menstrual Cycle Phase Confirmation

The consensus among methodological experts is clear: assuming or estimating menstrual cycle phases represents a scientifically unsound approach that compromises data integrity [19] [44]. As research increasingly includes female participants and focuses on hormonal influences, implementation of direct verification methods becomes essential.

While practical constraints may preclude universal application of the complete gold standard (serial ultrasound + serum monitoring), researchers should implement appropriate direct verification methods based on their specific study context and resources. As quantitative urinary hormone monitors undergo rigorous validation against gold standards, they offer a promising balance of practicality and precision for field-based and large-scale studies [45].

The future of menstrual cycle research lies in standardized methodologies, transparent reporting of verification procedures, and appropriate interpretation of data within the limitations of chosen methods. By adopting these rigorous approaches, researchers can generate reliable, reproducible findings that advance our understanding of female physiology and pharmacology.

Defining and accurately identifying menstrual cycle phases is a fundamental prerequisite for research in women's health, drug development, and neuroscience. The menstrual cycle's dynamic endocrine landscape directly influences physiological systems, disease manifestations, and therapeutic responses [48]. Inconsistencies in phase determination methodology, however, pose a significant challenge to data validity, replication, and cross-study comparisons. A consensus on nomenclature and operational definitions is urgently needed to advance the field.

This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of three cornerstone methodologies for menstrual cycle phase determination: urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) tests, serum progesterone assays, and basal body temperature (BBT) tracking. We evaluate their underlying physiology, technical performance, methodological protocols, and integration into a robust research framework, providing researchers with the evidence needed to implement these tools with scientific rigor.

Urinary Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Tests: Predicting Ovulation

Physiology and Rationale

The luteinizing hormone (LH) surge is a definitive endocrine event that triggers ovulation approximately 24-48 hours after its onset [49]. The detection of this surge in urine provides a practical, non-invasive method for predicting the imminent release of the oocyte and identifying the transition from the follicular to the luteal phase.

Performance Data and Optimal Thresholds

Critical evaluation of urinary LH test performance reveals that threshold selection is paramount. A key observational study of 283 cycles established that the ideal thresholds for predicting ovulation within 24 hours range from 25 to 30 mIU/ml [50]. The performance characteristics of these thresholds are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of Urinary LH Thresholds for Predicting Ovulation within 24 Hours [50]

LH Threshold (mIU/ml)	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive Predictive Value (PPV)	Negative Predictive Value (NPV)	Positive Likelihood Ratio (LR+)
25	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified	50-60%	98%	20-30
30	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified	50-60%	98%	20-30

This study further demonstrated that testing earlier in the cycle (e.g., from cycle day 7) improves predictive value. Conversely, the false-positive rate increases when predicting ovulation over longer windows (48-72 hours) or when requiring multiple consecutive positive tests [50]. Combining LH testing with assessment of peak cervical mucus significantly enhanced specificity (97-99%) compared to either marker alone [50].

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Urinary LH Assessment

Materials:

• Quantitative or qualitative urinary LH immunoassay kits.
• First-morning urine samples (10-12 mL).
• Aliquot tubes containing gentamicin sulfate as a preservative.
• Freezer (-20°C) for sample storage.
• Laboratory equipment for fluorometric immunosorbent assays (e.g., Delfia).

Procedure:

• Participant Instruction & Sample Collection: Participants collect first-morning urine voids daily, starting on cycle day 7. The time of collection should be recorded.
• Sample Storage: Urine aliquots are frozen at -20°C on the day of collection to preserve analyte integrity.
• Laboratory Analysis: Frozen samples are thawed and analyzed in duplicate. The intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) for LH should be maintained below 7.17% to ensure precision [50].
• Data Interpretation: A test is defined as positive when the LH concentration exceeds the pre-specified threshold (e.g., 25 mIU/ml). The first day of a sustained rise above this threshold is identified as the LH surge onset.

Diagram 1: Workflow for Urinary LH Surge Detection

Serum Progesterone: Confirming Ovulation and Luteal Function

Physiology and Rationale

Following ovulation, the ruptured follicle transforms into the corpus luteum, which secretes progesterone [51]. The resulting significant rise in serum progesterone concentration serves as a definitive biochemical marker that ovulation has occurred. Beyond confirming ovulation, progesterone levels are a key indicator of corpus luteum function and are critically important in early pregnancy maintenance [52] [53].

Performance Data and Clinical Utility

A single serum progesterone measurement is a powerful tool for assessing endocrine status. In early pregnancy, a prospective study found that a serum progesterone level ≤ 6 ng/ml was predictive of an abnormal outcome (e.g., miscarriage) with 81% probability [52]. For confirming ovulation in the cycle, a mid-luteal phase level typically exceeds 5 ng/ml in ovulatory cycles, with higher values (e.g., >10 ng/ml) indicating robust luteal function [53].

Table 2: Serum Progesterone Levels and Their Clinical Interpretation

Progesterone Level	Cycle Phase/Timing	Interpretation / Prognostic Value
< 5 ng/ml	Mid-Luteal Phase	Suggests anovulation or inadequate luteal function
> 5 ng/ml	Mid-Luteal Phase	Confirmation of ovulation
> 10 ng/ml	Mid-Luteal Phase	Indicates robust luteal function
≤ 6 ng/ml	Early Pregnancy (<8 weeks)	81% probability of abnormal pregnancy outcome (e.g., miscarriage) [52]
22.1 ng/ml (mean)	Early Pregnancy (<8 weeks)	Associated with viable pregnancies [52]

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Serum Progesterone Assessment

Materials:

• Phlebotomy supplies (tourniquet, vacutainer tubes, etc.).
• Centrifuge for serum separation.
• Freezer (-20°C or -80°C) for serum storage.
• Validated progesterone immunoassay (e.g., RIA, ELISA).

Procedure:

• Blood Draw: Collect a venous blood sample (e.g., 5-10 mL) in a serum-separator tube during the mid-luteal phase, approximately 7 days after a detected LH surge, or at a defined gestational age in pregnancy studies.
• Sample Processing: Allow blood to clot, then centrifuge to separate serum. Aliquot serum into cryovials to avoid freeze-thaw cycles.
• Sample Storage: Store aliquots at -20°C or -80°C until batch analysis.
• Laboratory Analysis: Analyze samples using a validated, quantitative progesterone immunoassay. All samples from a single participant should be run in the same assay batch to minimize inter-assay variability.

Basal Body Temperature (BBT): Tracking the Thermal Shift

Physiology and Rationale

The hormone progesterone has a thermogenic effect. After ovulation, the rise in progesterone secreted by the corpus luteum acts on the hypothalamus to increase the body's basal resting temperature by approximately 0.5°F to 1.0°F (0.3°C to 0.6°C) [51]. This establishes a biphasic pattern in the daily temperature record, with higher temperatures sustained throughout the luteal phase until the onset of menses.

Performance Data and Methodological Limitations

While BBT is a simple and low-cost method, its reliability for precise ovulation timing is limited. Some studies estimate its accuracy for detecting the exact day of ovulation to be as low as 22% [51]. The thermal shift often occurs 1-3 days after ovulation, making it more useful for retrospective confirmation of ovulation than for prospective prediction [51] [48]. The Quantitative Basal Temperature (QBT) method, which uses statistical comparison to the cycle's mean temperature, may offer a more objective approach to identifying the shift and calculating luteal phase length [54].

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Quantitative Basal Temperature (QBT)

Materials:

• Digital basal thermometer (accurate to 1/10th of a degree Fahrenheit or Celsius).
• Menstrual cycle diary or chart for recording.

Procedure:

• Measurement: Immediately upon waking and before any physical activity (including sitting up, talking, or drinking), place the thermometer under the tongue to obtain a reading.
• Consistency: Measurements must be taken at approximately the same time every morning. Significant deviations in sleep or wake time, illness, alcohol consumption, or emotional stress should be recorded, as they can confound the temperature reading [51] [54].
• Data Recording: Record the temperature daily on a chart or in a digital app.
• Data Analysis (QBT Method):
  • Compute the average (mean) of all temperatures for one complete cycle.
  • Identify the day when the temperature rises and remains consistently above the mean until the day before the next menstrual flow. This indicates ovulation has likely occurred.
  • The luteal phase length is the number of days from this temperature shift until the day before the next menses. A short luteal phase is defined as 3-9 days of elevated temperatures [54].

Diagram 2: BBT Workflow for Retrospective Ovulation Confirmation

Integrated Approach and Research Reagents

Synergistic Use of Biomarkers

No single method is perfect. The highest level of accuracy is achieved by combining multiple biomarkers. For instance, the specificity for identifying the fertile window rises to 97-99% when urinary LH tests are used in conjunction with cervical mucus observation, compared to using either marker alone [50]. An integrated protocol is outlined in Diagram 3.

Diagram 3: Relationship Between Key Ovulation Assessment Tools

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Key Considerations
Urinary LH Immunoassay Kits (e.g., Delfia)	Quantitative detection of LH surge in first-morning urine.	Critical to know the test's specific threshold (aim for 25-30 mIU/ml). Intra-assay CV should be <10% [50].
Progesterone Immunoassay (RIA or ELISA)	Quantitative measurement of serum progesterone to confirm ovulation and assess luteal function.	Requires phlebotomy and sample processing. Must be validated for human serum.
Digital Basal Thermometer	Measures minute changes in resting body temperature with high resolution.	Must be accurate to 1/10th of a degree. Patient compliance is critical for data quality [51].
Serum Separator Tubes & Centrifuge	For collection and processing of blood samples for progesterone analysis.	Proper centrifugation and aliquoting are necessary to preserve sample integrity.
Cryogenic Vials & Freezer (-80°C)	Long-term storage of biological samples (urine, serum) for batch analysis.	Maintains stability of hormones for later batch analysis to reduce inter-assay variability.
Transvaginal Ultrasound	Gold-standard direct visualization of follicular development and ovulation.	Used in validation studies to confirm the accuracy of biochemical markers [50].

Urinary LH tests, serum progesterone, and basal body temperature are foundational tools for defining menstrual cycle phases in research. Each method has distinct strengths: LH tests for predicting ovulation, progesterone for confirming it and assessing luteal adequacy, and BBT for providing a low-cost, retrospective overview.

However, their individual limitations—including variable test thresholds, the invasiveness of blood draws, and the imprecision of BBT—highlight that a single-method approach is insufficient for high-stakes research. The path forward for the field lies in the adoption of a consensus nomenclature that explicitly defines menstrual cycle phases based on integrated, multi-modal criteria (e.g., LH surge day + progesterone criteria). Utilizing the protocols and data presented here, researchers can implement these tools with greater rigor, thereby enhancing the validity and reproducibility of studies into this critical aspect of human physiology.

Within the context of broader consensus research on menstrual cycle nomenclature, this technical guide addresses the critical need for standardized, hormonally-defined operational definitions of menstrual cycle phases. The common practice of estimating cycle phases based on calendar counting or self-reported bleeding patterns introduces significant error and undermines data validity in scientific studies, particularly those investigating cycle-mediated effects on drug efficacy, performance, and health outcomes. This paper provides a rigorous framework for establishing a-priori hormonal thresholds to demarcate phase boundaries, detailing verified experimental protocols for hormone assessment, and presenting consensus-driven quantitative criteria for defining the follicular, ovulatory, and luteal phases. Adoption of these precise methodologies is essential for producing reliable, reproducible, and clinically relevant research in female physiology.

The menstrual cycle is characterized by dynamic fluctuations in ovarian hormones that regulate both reproductive and non-reproductive tissues. For research aimed at understanding cycle-phase-dependent phenomena—such as drug pharmacokinetics, metabolic responses, or athletic performance—the common reliance on calendar-based estimates or the presence of menses alone is methodologically inadequate [19]. Simply put, counting days from the last menstrual period does not guarantee a specific underlying hormonal milieu.

The term "eumenorrheic" should be reserved for cycles confirmed through hormonal measurements to have a length of 21-35 days, evidence of a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, and subsequent adequate progesterone production [19]. In contrast, the term "naturally menstruating" can be applied when cycle regularity is established by calendar counting but no advanced hormonal testing is performed; in such cases, assigning specific phase names beyond "menstruation" and "non-menstruation" is not scientifically valid [19]. This guide establishes the direct measurement of hormonal markers as the gold standard for phase determination in research settings.

Quantitative Hormonal Thresholds for Phase Boundaries

Establishing a-priori hormonal thresholds is fundamental to operationalizing cycle phases. The tables below summarize the consensus criteria for defining the key hormonally-discrete phases of the menstrual cycle.

Table 1: Operational Definitions and Hormonal Thresholds for Menstrual Cycle Phases

Cycle Phase	Primary Hormonal Hallmarks	Proposed A-Priori Thresholds for Phase Boundary	Typical Cycle Days (28-day cycle)
Late Follicular Phase	Rising Estradiol (E2), low Progesterone (P4)	E2 > 80 pg/mL and P4 < 1.5 ng/mL [55] [16]	~Day 7 - Day 13
Ovulation	LH surge, peak E2 followed by a drop	LH > 17.2 IU/L (surge onset) with subsequent decline in E2 [56] [16]	~Day 14
Mid-Luteal Phase	High Progesterone, moderate Estradiol	P4 > 5 ng/mL (or > 10 nmol/L) with E2 ~60-200 pg/mL [16] [55]	~Day 21

Table 2: Reference Ranges for Key Hormones Across the Menstrual Cycle [56] [55]

Status/Phase	Luteinizing Hormone (IU/L)	Estradiol (pg/mL)	Progesterone
Early/Mid Follicular	1.37 - 9.0	20 - 80 [55]	Low (<1.5 ng/mL)
Pre-Ovulatory (Surge)	6.17 - 17.2	200 - 500 [55]	Low (<1.5 ng/mL)
Luteal	1.09 - 9.2	60 - 200 [55]	>5 ng/mL (Mid-Luteal) [16]
Post-Menopause	19.3 - 100.6	< 20 [55]	Low

Experimental Protocols for Hormonal Verification

Protocol for Determining Ovulation and the Luteal Phase

This protocol is designed to accurately pinpoint ovulation and confirm a functional luteal phase.

• Objective: To confirm the occurrence of ovulation and establish the subsequent luteal phase via urinary LH surge detection and serum progesterone measurement.
• Materials: Urinary LH kits (qualitative or quantitative), facilities for serum phlebotomy and hormone immunoassay.
• Procedure:
  • Recruitment & Inclusion: Recruit participants with self-reported regular cycles (21-35 days). Record first day of menses (Cycle Day 1).
  • LH Surge Monitoring: Beginning on approximately Cycle Day 10, participants provide daily first-morning urine samples for LH testing. An LH surge is defined as a value exceeding a pre-defined threshold (e.g., >17.2 IU/L if using quantitative tests, or a positive qualitative test) [56].
  • Post-Ovulation Confirmation: Precisely 7 days after the detected LH surge, a single blood sample is drawn for serum progesterone and estradiol analysis.
  • Phase Verification: A serum progesterone level >5 ng/mL is required to confirm that ovulation occurred and to classify the timepoint as within the "mid-luteal phase" [19]. Estradiol should be within the moderate luteal range (~60-200 pg/mL).

Protocol for Follicular Phase Determination

• Objective: To verify a participant is in the follicular phase, characterized by low progesterone and low-to-moderate estradiol.
• Procedure:
  • Scheduling: Testing is scheduled between Cycle Days 5-7, based on the onset of menses.
  • Blood Sampling: A single blood sample is drawn for serum progesterone and estradiol analysis.
  • Phase Verification: A serum progesterone level <1.5 ng/mL confirms the participant is in a non-luteal phase. Estradiol levels can be variable during this phase but are typically <80 pg/mL in the early follicular stage, rising towards the late follicular phase [55].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Menstrual Cycle Phase Verification Research

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Urinary LH Kits	Detecting the pre-ovulatory LH surge to predict ovulation.	Choose quantitative kits for precise threshold setting or high-sensitivity qualitative kits for clear surge identification.
Serum Progesterone Immunoassay	Quantifying progesterone levels to confirm ovulation and luteal function.	Must be validated for human serum. The threshold of >5 ng/mL (or >10 nmol/L) is critical for luteal phase confirmation [19].
Serum Estradiol Immunoassay	Quantifying estradiol levels to characterize follicular development and phase status.	Essential for distinguishing between early and late follicular phases and for verifying the peri-ovulatory estradiol peak.
Salivary Hormone Test Kits	Non-invasive alternative for tracking progesterone and estradiol patterns.	Useful for frequent, at-home sampling. Requires rigorous validation against serum standards for the specific assay used.
Electronic Hormone Monitors	Integrated devices for tracking urinary hormone metabolites (e.g., PdG) in field-based research.	Can provide a pragmatic balance of objectivity and practicality in non-laboratory settings.

Workflow Visualization for Phase Verification

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision process for verifying menstrual cycle phases based on direct hormonal measurements.

Diagram 1: Hormonal verification workflow for cycle phase determination.

The scientific imperative for moving beyond estimated menstrual cycle phases is clear. The methodological rigor of a study directly influences the validity and reliability of its conclusions. By adopting the explicit a-priori hormonal thresholds, standardized protocols, and verification workflows outlined in this guide, researchers can significantly enhance the quality of evidence in studies involving menstruating individuals. This precision is not merely academic; it is a prerequisite for generating actionable insights into female-specific physiology, pharmacology, and health, thereby ensuring that research findings are built upon a foundation of biological verification rather than calendar-based assumption.

The standardization of medication dosing in schizophrenia has historically overlooked a critical source of biological variability: the menstrual cycle. Significant sex differences in schizophrenia presentation, treatment response, and adverse effect profiles are well-documented [57]. Women exhibit slower antipsychotic metabolism, achieve higher dose-adjusted serum concentrations, and demonstrate greater sensitivity to dopaminergic blockade compared to men, yet dosing regimens rarely account for these differences [58]. The fluctuating hormonal milieu of the menstrual cycle, particularly variations in estradiol, further modulates this complex interaction, influencing symptom severity and medication efficacy throughout its phases [59] [60].

This technical guide establishes a methodological framework for implementing phase-specific dosing in schizophrenia clinical trials. Grounded in emerging consensus on menstrual cycle nomenclature and measurement [19], this approach addresses the cyclical biological reality of premenopausal women. By moving beyond one-dose-fits-all paradigms, researchers can generate evidence for personalized dosing strategies that may optimize outcomes for women with schizophrenia through enhanced efficacy and reduced side effects.

Scientific Foundations: Hormonal Fluctuations and Schizophrenia

Key Hormonal Mechanisms and Clinical Evidence

The "estrogen hypothesis" of schizophrenia proposes that estrogen exerts a protective effect via its modulation of dopaminergic, serotonergic, and glutamatergic systems [57]. Estradiol's dopamine D2 receptor antagonizing properties are of particular interest, as they may provide a natural, cyclical buffer against psychotic symptoms [59] [60].

Table 1: Documented Menstrual Cycle-Linked Clinical Fluctuations in Schizophrenia

Clinical Parameter	Phase of Worsening	Reported Manifestations	Source Evidence
Psychotic Symptoms	Premenstrual/Menstrual	Increased restlessness, irritability, hallucinations, delusions, conceptual disorganization [59].	Clinical case series [59]
Symptom Severity	Low-Estrogen Phases	Higher Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores premenstrually; "catamenial psychosis" patterns [59] [60].	Longitudinal case observation [59]
Medication Response	Perimenstrual	Apparent decreased efficacy of standing antipsychotic dose, requiring short-term increase [59].	Single-case protocol [59]
Medication Side Effects	Follicular Phase	Increased complaints of stiffness, tremors, somnolence when estrogen rises post-menses [59].	Clinical observation [59]
Service Utilization	Premenstrual/Menstrual	Increased risk of hospitalization and recurrent psychotic episodes [59].	Epidemiologic and follow-up studies [59]

The Critical Need for Precise Phase Definition in Research

A major limitation in existing literature is the inconsistent and often assumed characterization of menstrual cycle phases. Calendar-based counting alone is methodologically insufficient and amounts to guessing hormonal status, as it cannot detect anovulatory cycles or luteal phase deficiencies, which are common [19]. High-quality research requires direct measurement of key hormonal endpoints to confirm phase and ovulatory status, moving beyond assumptions to ensure valid and reliable results [19].

Methodological Framework for Phase-Specific Dosing Trials

Defining and Confirming Menstrual Cycle Phases

Implementing phase-specific dosing requires precise, prospectively confirmed definitions of menstrual cycle phases. The following workflow outlines a rigorous protocol for participant screening and phase verification.

Diagram 1: Participant screening and menstrual cycle phase verification workflow. The protocol requires direct hormone measurement to confirm ovulation and define hormonally distinct phases, moving beyond calendar estimates [19].

Core Dosing Strategy and Clinical Management Protocol

The central hypothesis is that symptom exacerbation during low-estrogen phases may require higher antipsychotic doses, while the same dose during high-estrogen phases may increase side effect risk. The following clinical decision pathway outlines the implementation of a flexible dosing regimen.

Diagram 2: Clinical management protocol for phase-specific antipsychotic dosing. This flexible regimen allows for preemptive dose adjustment based on the individual's cyclical symptom pattern [59].

Experimental Protocols and Outcome Measures

Detailed Trial Methodology

A phase-specific dosing trial requires a hybrid design that first establishes a baseline pattern before implementing an intervention.

• Design: A randomized, double-blind, N-of-1 crossover sequence or a prospective cohort study with a baseline observation period. The initial phase should consist of a minimum of two complete menstrual cycles with stable, standard dosing and prospective tracking of symptoms and cycle phases to establish an individual's catamenial pattern [59].
• Intervention Phase: Over the subsequent 2-3 cycles, participants are randomized to receive either:
  • Fixed Dosing: A constant daily dose of the antipsychotic.
  • Flexible Dosing: A pre-specified dose increase during the identified high-risk window (e.g., 5-10 days pre-menses through the first 3 days of menses), with a return to the standard dose for the remainder of the cycle [59].
• Blinding: To maintain the blind, the "flexible dosing" can be administered using a combination of fixed-dose tablets and matched placebo, or by leveraging orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs) which may have a perceived faster onset and facilitate self-titration [59].

Core Outcome Metrics and Assessment Tools

Table 2: Primary and Secondary Outcomes for Phase-Specific Dosing Trials

Category	Specific Metric	Assessment Tool / Method	Frequency
Efficacy	Positive, Negative, and General Psychopathology	Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [59] [61]	Weekly
Efficacy	Overall Illness Severity	Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S) [61]	Bi-weekly
Safety/Tolerability	Extrapyramidal Symptoms, Sedation, Weight	Standardized Side Effect Scales, Vital Signs, Lab Tests	Weekly
Hormonal Status	Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Surge	Urinary LH Test Kits	Daily (Mid-Cycle)
Hormonal Status	Progesterone, Estradiol	Serum Assays (LC-MS/MS preferred) [19]	Once per Phase
Functional & Patient-Reported	Social & Occupational Functioning	Social Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS)	End of Cycle
Functional & Patient-Reported	Subjective Mood, Anxiety, Sleep	Daily Self-Report Diary / Mobile App [59]	Daily

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Menstrual Cycle Research in Schizophrenia Trials

Item / Solution	Function / Application	Technical Notes
Urinary LH Test Kits	Confirmation of ovulation via detection of the luteinizing hormone surge.	Critical for defining the post-ovulatory luteal phase. Home-use kits are sufficient for detection [19].
LC-MS/MS Assays	Gold-standard quantification of serum estradiol and progesterone levels.	Provides high-sensitivity, specific hormonal data to confirm menstrual cycle phase beyond urinary LH [19].
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) System	Daily tracking of subjective mood, anxiety, sleep, and premonitory symptoms.	Enables real-time correlation of symptoms with cycle phase. Can be paired with medication adherence monitoring [59].
PANSS & CGI-S Scales	Validated, standardized assessment of psychiatric symptom severity.	The PANSS is a primary efficacy endpoint in most schizophrenia trials; requires trained, reliable raters [59] [61].
Orally Disintegrating Tablet (ODT) Formulation	Facilitates self-titration and blinding in flexible dosing regimens.	Patients report ODTs have a faster perceived onset, aiding in symptom-driven dosing [59].

Implementing phase-specific dosing in schizophrenia trials represents a paradigm shift toward precision psychiatry for women. This guide provides a foundational methodology, yet several frontiers require further exploration. Future research must establish dose-adjustment algorithms for specific antipsychotics, informed by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) across cycle phases, given known sex differences in drug metabolism [58]. Furthermore, the interaction between hormonal contraceptives—which create an artificial, stable hormonal environment—and antipsychotic dosing warrants dedicated study [62] [58]. Finally, validating digital biomarkers and patient-centric endpoints will be crucial for making cyclical dosing strategies feasible in real-world clinical practice. By adopting this rigorous, phase-conscious framework, drug developers can generate the robust evidence needed to optimize outcomes for women with schizophrenia throughout their reproductive lives.

Overcoming Common Pitfalls and Methodological Challenges in Cycle Research

A significant body of evidence indicates that the presence of regular menstrual bleeding is an insufficient indicator of ovulatory function, leading to widespread underdiagnosis of anovulatory cycles and luteal phase deficiency (LPD). This whitepaper synthesizes current research to argue that reliance on cycle regularity alone fosters a dangerous assumption of ovulation, obscuring the true prevalence of ovulatory disturbances. Data from athletic and general populations reveal that up to 26% of cycles with regular bleeding are anovulatory or exhibit LPD, with profound implications for fertility, bone health, and drug development research. We present standardized experimental protocols for detecting these conditions, including quantitative hormone thresholds and methodological considerations. Finally, we propose a framework for refining menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature to enhance consensus across scientific disciplines.

The menstrual cycle is historically categorized by its most visible event—uterine bleeding—which has led to the common but flawed assumption that cyclic bleeding confirms ovulation. In reality, menstrual bleeding can occur without preceding ovulation, a phenomenon termed anovulatory bleeding [4]. The endometrial lining can build up under the influence of estrogen alone and shed irregularly, producing bleeding that mimics a true menses. This discrepancy between external signs and internal endocrine events represents a critical blind spot in both clinical practice and research.

The accurate identification of ovulation and a adequately functioning luteal phase is paramount. Progesterone, the hormone secreted by the corpus luteum after ovulation, is essential not only for establishing and maintaining pregnancy but also for systemic health, including bone density maintenance and immunomodulation [63]. Cycles without sufficient progesterone (anovulatory or LPD cycles) are linked to increased bone resorption and long-term deficits in bone mineral density, representing a significant health risk beyond infertility [64].

Epidemiological Data: Quantifying the Prevalence of Ovulatory Disturbances

Emerging research across diverse populations indicates that ovulatory disturbances are far more common than previously assumed, particularly in populations with specific metabolic demands.

Table 1: Documented Prevalence of Anovulation and LPD in Research Studies

Population Studied	Sample Size (Cycles)	Finding	Prevalence	Primary Citation
Athletes (Level II-III) with Regular Cycles	27	Cycles failing to reach progesterone threshold of 16 nmol/L	26%	[65]
Free-living Competitive Racewalkers & Runners	15	Cycles with peak progesterone ≤9.40 ng·mL⁻¹, indicating ovulatory disturbances	~47% (7 of 15)	[64]
Free-living Competitive Racewalkers & Runners with Low Energy Availability (<35 kcal·kg FFM⁻¹·day⁻¹)	7	All exhibited ovulatory disturbances (Pk-PRG ≤9.40 ng·mL⁻¹)	100%	[64]

The data in Table 1 highlight two critical points. First, in a cohort of athletes with overtly regular cycles, over one-quarter exhibited silent ovulatory defects [65]. Second, the strong association with low energy availability (EA) suggests a modifiable risk factor, with a clear threshold effect observed; all athletes with an EA below 35 kcal·kg FFM⁻¹·day⁻¹ showed compromised luteal function [64].

Diagnostic Methodologies and Protocols

Accurate identification of anovulation and LPD requires moving beyond calendar tracking to direct hormonal and physiological assessments.

Defining the Luteal Phase and Its Deficiency

The luteal phase is defined as the time between ovulation and the onset of menses, typically lasting approximately 14 days in an ovulatory cycle [4]. Luteal phase deficiency is characterized by insufficient progesterone production or a shortened luteal phase duration, compromising endometrial receptivity.

Table 2: Diagnostic Hormonal Thresholds for Ovulatory Status

Parameter	Threshold for "Ovulatory" Cycle	Threshold for "Potentially Fertile" Cycle	Threshold Indicating LPD or Anovulation
Serum Progesterone (Peak/Mid-Luteal)	≥ 3.0 ng·mL⁻¹ [64]	> 9.4 ng·mL⁻¹ [64]	< 5.0 ng·mL⁻¹ (LPD) [64]
Serum Progesterone (McKay et al.)	≥ 16 nmol/L (~5.0 ng/mL) [65]	—	< 16 nmol/L [65]

Experimental Protocols for Determining Ovulatory Status

For researchers, the following protocols provide a framework for accurate cycle phase classification.

Protocol 1: Serum Hormone Confirmation of Ovulation and Luteal Function This is the gold-standard methodology for clinical research [46].

• Participant Selection: Recruit naturally cycling, premenopausal women not using hormonal contraception. Document cycle regularity.
• Ovulation Prediction: Use urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) kits to detect the LH surge. The day of the surge is designated as Day 0.
• Blood Sampling: Collect a fasted blood sample during the mid-luteal phase, 6-8 days after the detected LH surge, but before the final 2 days of the cycle [64].
• Laboratory Analysis: Quantify serum progesterone concentration using a validated immunoassay (e.g., electrochemiluminescence immunoassay).
• Cycle Classification:
  • Ovulatory: Progesterone ≥ 16 nmol/L or > 9.4 ng·mL⁻¹ [65] [64].
  • Luteal Phase Deficient: Progesterone < 5.0 ng·mL⁻¹ [64] or a shortened luteal phase <10 days.
  • Anovulatory: Progesterone consistently remains at follicular-phase levels (< 3.0 ng·mL⁻¹) with no observed LH surge.

Protocol 2: Urinary Hormone and Basal Body Temperature (BBT) Tracking A non-invasive protocol suitable for field studies or longitudinal monitoring [63] [64].

• BBT Measurement: Participants measure sublingual BBT immediately upon waking, using a digital thermometer with 0.1°C accuracy, and record it on a chart.
• Cervical Mucus Observation: Participants concurrently record observations of cervical mucus quality [63].
• Ovulation Identification: A sustained BBT shift of approximately 0.3–0.5 °C for at least three consecutive days, coupled with a change in cervical mucus from fertile (clear, stretchy) to infertile (cloudy, sticky) quality, indicates ovulation has occurred.
• Luteal Phase Length Calculation: The luteal phase length is calculated from the day after the BBT shift to the day before the next menses. A phase lasting <10 days is diagnostic of LPD [64].
• Validation: For research validation, this method can be paired with a single urinary progesterone metabolite (pregnanediol glucuronide) test 6-8 days post-BBT shift.

Underlying Mechanisms and Pathophysiology

The etiology of anovulation and LPD is multifactorial, often involving disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis.

In PCOS, a leading cause of anovulatory infertility, rapid pulsatility of GnRH from the hypothalamus leads to excessive LH secretion. This disrupts follicular growth and results in cycles dominated by estrogen without ovulation or adequate progesterone production [63]. A state of low energy availability, common in athletes and active individuals, disrupts the pulsatile release of LH, which is a prerequisite for ovulation. This provides a direct metabolic link to ovulatory dysfunction [64]. In both cases, the result is a cycle with an aberrant hormonal profile—often unopposed estrogen and low progesterone—that can still produce uterine bleeding, perpetuating the assumption of normalcy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for Menstrual Cycle Research

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA)	Quantitative measurement of serum progesterone, LH, estradiol. Gold-standard for hormone level validation [64].	High sensitivity and specificity required. Must be calibrated against international standards.
Urinary LH Kits	Point-of-care detection of the luteinizing hormone surge to pinpoint impending ovulation [46].	Ideal for timing mid-luteal phase blood draws in research protocols.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for Salivary Hormones	Non-invasive measurement of bioavailable (unbound) steroid hormones like estradiol and progesterone [46].	Correlates less perfectly with serum levels; subject to methodological inconsistencies. Best for field studies.
Digital Basal Body Temperature (BBT) Thermometer	Tracking the post-ovulatory biphasic shift in resting body temperature [63] [64].	Must have accuracy of at least 0.1°C. Data logging capability is advantageous.
Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) ELISA	Assessing ovarian reserve; useful for characterizing participant populations in fertility research [63].	Levels are relative to age; provides context for ovarian function.

The high prevalence of occult anovulation and LPD demands a paradigm shift in how the menstrual cycle is defined and monitored in scientific research. Reliance on menstrual bleeding alone is an inadequate and potentially misleading practice. The integration of objective hormonal and physiological biomarkers is no longer a luxury but a necessity for rigorous science.

We propose the following framework to build a nomenclature consensus:

• Cycle Classification: Define cycles biochemically as "ovulatory," "luteal phase deficient," or "anovulatory" based on defined progesterone thresholds, rather than solely by bleeding patterns.
• Phase Delineation: Use the LH surge (or its surrogate) as the primary reference point for phase alignment across studies, moving beyond calendar-based estimates which are highly error-prone.
• Methodological Reporting: Mandate the detailed reporting of ovulation confirmation methods (including specific assays and thresholds used) in all publications involving cyclic female participants.

Adopting these standardized definitions and methodologies will enhance the reproducibility of research, improve the accuracy of drug efficacy studies across the cycle, and ultimately lead to better health outcomes for women by replacing assumption with evidence.

Within the critical context of establishing a nomenclature consensus for menstrual cycle research, the precise classification of research participants is paramount. This technical guide delineates the fundamental distinction between the terms 'eumenorrhea' and 'naturally menstruating,' a distinction vital for methodological rigor, data validity, and the advancement of female-specific sport and exercise science, physiology, and drug development research. Inaccurate participant categorization, often reliant on assumed or estimated cycle phases, risks generating unreliable evidence with significant implications for interpreting female athlete health, training, performance, and injury [19]. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the underlying physiology, offers detailed experimental protocols for precise hormonal verification, and furnishes researchers with a definitive toolkit for rigorous participant screening.

The increased growth and professionalization of women's sport has catalyzed an urgent call for high-quality, female-specific research. In response, the scientific community has accelerated studies investigating female-specific matters, such as the menstrual cycle [19]. However, this welcome increase in research volume has exposed a critical methodological weakness: the common practice of using assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases to characterize ovarian hormone profiles [19]. This approach, often born from pragmatic constraints on time, resources, and athlete availability, amounts to guessing the occurrence and timing of ovarian hormone fluctuations [19].

The broader thesis underpinning this discourse is that the field must transition from a historical reliance on inconsistent and poorly defined terms toward a universal, physiologically grounded nomenclature. This evolution is essential for designing and interpreting basic, translational, epidemiological, and clinical research [66]. The terms 'eumenorrhea' and 'naturally menstruating' sit at the heart of this transition, representing two distinct levels of methodological certainty and biological reality.

Physiological Foundations and Definitions

The Menstrual Cycle: A Complex Interaction of Systems

The menstrual cycle is characterized by three inter-related cycles: the ovarian cycle (lifecycle of an oocyte), the hormonal cycle (fluctuations in ovarian and pituitary hormones), and the endometrial cycle (changes in the uterine lining) [19]. For research focused on the physiological effects of ovarian hormones on a parameter of interest (e.g., performance, metabolism, injury risk), the hormonal cycle is of primary importance. The cycle can be divided into hormonally discrete phases based on changes in endogenous oestradiol and progesterone levels [19]. A fundamental tenet is that the presence of menses and a calendar-based cycle length of 21–35 days does not guarantee a eumenorrheic hormonal profile [19].

Eumenorrhea: A Verified Hormonal Status

From a research perspective, eumenorrhea (derived from Greek: eu "good," meno "month," rrhea "flow") refers to a confirmed, healthy menstrual cycle with a specific hormonal profile [23] [67]. The criteria for classifying a participant as eumenorrheic are stringent and must be verified through direct measurement:

• Menstrual cycle length: Consistent cycles lasting ≥ 21 days and ≤ 35 days [23].
• Menstrual frequency: Ten or more consecutive periods per year [23].
• Evidence of ovulation: Confirmation of a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge via urine or blood tests [19] [23].
• Correct hormonal profile: Verification of sufficient luteal phase progesterone concentrations via blood or saliva sampling [19] [23].
• Hormonal contraceptive use: No use of hormonal contraceptives for a defined period (e.g., 3 months) prior to recruitment [67].

Naturally Menstruating: A Descriptive, Non-Verified Status

The term 'naturally menstruating' should be applied in research when a cycle length between 21 and 35 days is established through calendar-based counting (i.e., self-report), but no advanced testing is used to establish the ovulatory status or hormonal profile [19]. This term acknowledges that the woman experiences menstruation without the influence of exogenous hormones but makes no claims about the normality of her underlying hormonal cycle. This classification can only reliably split the cycle into menstruation days and non-menstruation days, and specific phase names (e.g., late follicular, mid-luteal) cannot be reliably attributed without verification [19].

Table 1: Core Definitions and Methodological Implications

Term	Definition	Key Methodological Criteria	Level of Certainty	Appropriate for Phase-Based Research?
Eumenorrhea	A healthy, ovulatory menstrual cycle with a verified correct hormonal profile.	- Calendar tracking- LH surge confirmation- Luteal progesterone verification	High (Verified)	Yes
Naturally Menstruating	Regular menstruation with cycle lengths of 21-35 days, without verification of hormonal profile or ovulation.	- Calendar tracking only (self-reported cycle length)	Low (Assumed)	No (Limited to menstruation vs. non-menstruation)

Quantitative Data and Prevalence of Menstrual Dysfunction

The critical importance of distinguishing between these terms is underscored by the high prevalence of both subtle and severe menstrual disturbances in exercising females, reported to be as high as 66% [19]. These disturbances, such as anovulatory cycles (where no ovulation occurs) or luteal phase deficiency (insufficient progesterone production), are often asymptomatic and can go entirely undetected if relying solely on calendar-based counting [19].

Table 2: Comparison of Cycle Characteristics in Research Participants

Characteristic	Eumenorrheic Cycle (Verified)	Naturally Menstruating Cycle (Assumed)	Reference
Cycle Length Variation	Up to 14 days of inter- and intra-individual variation, even within "normal" range.	Unknown; subtle disturbances are masked.	[67]
Prevalence of Anovulation/ Luteal Phase Defect	Excluded via direct measurement.	Up to 66% in exercising females may have undetected disturbances.	[19]
Hormonal Profile Certainty	High; confirmed correct profile with expected E2 and P4 patterns.	Unknown; substantial variability in hormone concentrations exists even among eumenorrheic women.	[19] [67]
Data Integrity for Phase-Based Studies	High; outcomes can be confidently linked to a specific hormonal milieu.	Low; outcomes are linked to an assumed, not actual, hormonal phase.	[19]

Experimental Protocols for Phase Verification

Gold-Standard Methodological Workflow

To establish a participant's status as eumenorrheic and accurately determine menstrual cycle phases, a rigorous protocol involving repeated measures is required. The workflow below outlines the key steps for a robust study design.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for Menstrual Cycle Verification

Research Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Methodological Notes
Urinary Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Kits	Detects the pre-ovulatory LH surge in urine to pinpoint ovulation (day 0).	Practical for field-based studies; allows participants to self-test daily at home.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)	Quantifies serum/plasma concentrations of 17-β estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4).	Gold-standard for hormonal verification; requires venipuncture and laboratory access.
Menstrual Cycle Tracking Diary	Participant-recorded data on cycle start/end dates, bleeding heaviness, and symptoms.	Standardizes self-reporting; adapted from WHO instruments for reliability [68].
Salivary Progesterone Immunoassay	Non-invasive method to assess progesterone levels for luteal phase confirmation.	Less invasive than blood sampling; correlation with serum levels requires validation.

Consequences of Imprecise Terminology and Methodological Flaws

Using assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases is neither a valid nor reliable methodological approach [19]. Validity (how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure) is compromised because calendar-based counting does not accurately reflect the underlying hormonal environment. Reliability (the reproducibility of a method) is poor due to significant inter- and intra-individual variability in cycle length and hormonal profiles, even among eumenorrheic women [19] [67].

The repercussions of this approach extend to evidence-informed practice. Drawing conclusions from data linked to assumed menstrual cycle phases produces low-quality evidence that can misguide clinical practice, athletic training programming, and resource deployment [19]. Furthermore, studies that merely assume phase timing without verification contribute to the prevailing confusion in the literature, where it is difficult to discern if null findings represent a true biological reality or are simply artifacts of poor methodological control [67].

Within the broader mission to establish a nomenclature consensus for menstrual cycle research, the precise distinction between 'eumenorrhea' and 'naturally menstruating' is non-negotiable for scientific integrity. Researchers, reviewers, and journal editors must insist upon transparent and accurate reporting of the methods used to determine menstrual status.

Recommendations for Future Research:

• Transparent Reporting: Methods sections must explicitly state whether menstrual cycle phases were "assumed," "estimated," or "verified" via direct measurement, and provide a clear rationale for the approach [19].
• Justify Limitations: When assumptions or estimations are used, researchers must transparently report the associated limitations and discuss their potential implications for data interpretation [19].
• Prioritize Verification: For studies where the research question is directly linked to the hormonal effects of the menstrual cycle, gold-standard verification methods must be employed to establish eumenorrhea and phase timing [23].
• Adopt Standardized Terminology: The terms 'eumenorrhea' and 'naturally menstruating' should be used as defined in this guide to ensure clarity and consistency across the field.

By adhering to these rigorous standards, the research community can generate high-quality, reliable data that truly advances our understanding of female physiology and translates into effective, evidence-based practices for the health and performance of all women.

Longitudinal hormonal monitoring is essential for capturing dynamic endocrine profiles but is often compromised by significant participant burden, leading to missing data and reduced compliance. This technical guide outlines evidence-based strategies to manage participant burden within menstrual cycle research, a field requiring precise phase definitions and high-frequency data collection. By integrating technological innovations, methodological adaptations, and proactive study design, researchers can enhance data quality and participant retention. The guidance is framed within the critical context of improving the validity and reliability of menstrual cycle phase definitions, moving beyond assumed or estimated phases towards directly measured, biologically anchored data.

In longitudinal studies investigating the menstrual cycle, the imperative for precise, phase-specific hormonal data conflicts with the practical challenges of participant engagement. Participant burden—the perceived physical, cognitive, and time-related demands of study involvement—directly impacts data completeness and quality [69]. This burden is particularly acute in menstrual cycle research, where the biological variability of hormone levels necessitates carefully timed sample collection to accurately capture phase-specific effects [70]. The field is simultaneously grappling with a necessary paradigm shift away from assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases, an approach which lacks scientific rigor and validity, towards methodologies reliant on direct measurement [19]. Consequently, modern study designs must solve a complex equation: minimizing burden to ensure compliance, while simultaneously incorporating robust, direct methods for phase determination that inherently require more participant engagement. Failure to do so risks generating data that is both incomplete and physiologically misaligned, undermining the consensus on menstrual cycle nomenclature and biology.

Core Strategies for Minimizing Participant Burden

Leveraging Technology for Smarter Data Collection

Electronic monitoring devices and digital platforms can significantly reduce burden by automating data capture and providing reminders.

• Electronic Adherence Monitoring: Devices like the easypod electromechanical injector, used in growth hormone therapy, automatically record injection dates, times, and doses, providing objective adherence data without requiring patient diaries [71]. This principle translates to hormonal monitoring through electronic fertility monitors (e.g., Clearblue Easy), which track urinary hormones to predict ovulation, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits for blood draws [70].
• ePROs and Digital Platforms: The electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) via smartphones or web interfaces is often preferred by participants and can improve compliance [69]. These platforms can be programmed with intelligent reminders and offer flexible completion times, integrating data collection seamlessly into daily life.

Optimizing Protocol Design and Measure Selection

Strategic study design choices can dramatically decrease the cognitive and time burden on participants.

• Rationalizing Visit and Measure Frequency: While daily sampling is the gold standard for hormonal profiling, it is often impractical. Strategically scheduling a handful of clinic visits around key biological windows (e.g., the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge) balances data quality with participant burden [70]. Furthermore, carefully select the number of PROs to administer, balancing data comprehensiveness against the time required for completion [69].
• Simplifying Questionnaires: Select and design PROMs with low cognitive requirements. This includes using simple recall periods, minimizing complex frequency calculations, and ensuring language is at a sixth-grade reading level or lower [69]. Brevity is valuable, but should not compromise the assessment of outcomes participants deem important.

Ensuring Data Relevance and Providing Feedback

Participants are more likely to remain engaged if they perceive the study as personally meaningful.

• Measuring Relevant Concepts: Ensure that the data being collected, whether from PROMs or biosamples, is relevant to the participant population. Collecting irrelevant information leads to disengagement and a higher perception of burden [69].
• Creating Feedback Loops: Sharing individualized insights (e.g., confirmed ovulation or cycle characteristics) with participants can foster a sense of partnership and value, justifying their investment of time and effort [19].

The following diagram illustrates the interconnected relationship between these strategic pillars and their ultimate impact on research outcomes.

Methodological Deep Dive: The BioCycle Study Protocol

The BioCycle Study serves as an exemplary model for balancing the need for precise hormonal data with manageable participant burden. Its methodology provides a replicable framework for researchers in this field.

Visit Scheduling and Fertility Monitor Integration

The study recruited 259 healthy premenopausal women and followed them for up to two menstrual cycles [70]. Instead of relying on a fixed 28-day model, visits were scheduled using an algorithm accounting for each woman's self-reported cycle length. Fertility monitors (Clearblue Easy) were central to the protocol, used daily from day 6 of the cycle to detect the urinary LH surge and pinpoint ovulation [70]. This integration allowed for dynamic rescheduling; if a monitor indicated "peak fertility" on an unscheduled day, the participant was called in for a visit, ensuring biological alignment.

Phase Realignment and Handling Missing Data

A key innovation was the post-hoc realignment of clinic visits to the correct biological phase based on fertility monitor and serum hormone data. This process acknowledged that even with monitor use, a visit might not occur on the exact day of a hormonal peak. However, realignment could create "missing" data points for phases where no visit occurred. To address this, the study employed longitudinal multiple imputation methods to estimate hormone levels for these missing phase-specific visits, thereby preserving statistical power and reducing bias introduced by the realignment process [70]. The results demonstrated that reclassified cycles had more clearly defined hormonal profiles, with higher mean peak hormones (up to 141%) and reduced variability (up to 71%) [70].

The workflow below details the sequence of procedures from participant enrollment to final data analysis in a longitudinal hormonal monitoring study.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

A successful longitudinal hormonal monitoring study relies on a suite of specialized tools and reagents to ensure data accuracy while mitigating burden.

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Hormonal Monitoring

Item Name	Function/Description	Role in Managing Burden
Clearblue Easy Fertility Monitor	Electronic device that measures urinary estrone-3-glucuronide and LH to identify the fertile window and LH surge [70].	Reduces need for frequent blood draws; enables at-home, daily monitoring with high participant compliance (84% in BioCycle).
Serum Hormone Immunoassays	Validated kits for measuring oestradiol, progesterone, LH, and FSH in serum (e.g., DPC Immulite2000 analyzer) [70].	Provides gold-standard validation for phase determination; high precision (CV <10-14%) ensures data quality from fewer samples.
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) System	Digital platform (web or app-based) for collecting symptom diaries, quality of life data, and other patient-reported measures [69].	Flexible, accessible completion; automated reminders improve compliance; reduces data entry errors.
Longitudinal Multiple Imputation Software	Statistical software (e.g., R, SAS) capable of implementing multiple imputation methods for longitudinal missing data [70].	Preserves statistical power and reduces bias when phase realignment or missed visits create missing data.
Secure Data Transfer Kit	Hardware/software for uploading encrypted data from electronic devices (e.g., fertility monitors, ePRO) to a central database [71].	Automates data flow, minimizing manual entry burden and transcription errors for researchers and participants.

Data Presentation: Quantitative Outcomes of Protocol Optimization

The impact of implementing burden-reducing strategies can be measured through adherence rates and data quality metrics. The following tables summarize empirical data from relevant longitudinal studies.

Table: Adherence and Compliance Metrics in Longitudinal Monitoring Studies

Study / Context	Monitoring Method	Key Adherence / Compliance Metric	Outcome
BioCycle Study [70]	Fertility monitor + 8 scheduled clinic visits	>93% of participants completed 7 or 8 visits per cycle; 84% had complete fertility monitor data for both cycles.	Demonstrates high compliance is achievable with a structured, monitor-informed protocol.
ECOS (Growth Hormone Therapy) [71]	Electronic adherence monitoring via easypod device.	Mean adherence of 87.6% at 3 months, 84.3% at 6 months, and 91.6% at 1 year (in a subset).	Shows electronic monitoring provides objective adherence data, revealing a trend of decreasing adherence over time.
PROs in Cancer Trials [69]	Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).	Preventable missing PRO data ranged from 17% to 41% in ovarian cancer trials.	Highlights the significant risk of missing data due to respondent burden, especially in clinically unwell populations.

Table: Impact of Data Realignment on Hormonal Metrics in the BioCycle Study [70]

Hormonal Metric	Change After Realignment and Imputation	Interpretation
Mean Peak Hormones	Increase of up to 141%	Realigning visits to the correct biological phase captures more accurate peak hormone levels, which are often missed by calendar-based schedules.
Hormonal Variability	Reduction of up to 71%	Correct phase classification creates cleaner, more defined hormonal profiles, reducing noise in the data and enhancing the ability to detect true effects.

Effectively managing participant burden is not merely a logistical concern but a fundamental methodological imperative in longitudinal hormonal research. The strategies outlined—leveraging technology, optimizing protocols, and engaging participants—are critical for generating the high-fidelity, biologically valid data required to advance the consensus on menstrual cycle nomenclature and phase-specific effects. The BioCycle protocol demonstrates that it is feasible to move beyond the scientifically problematic practice of assuming cycle phases [19] without overburdening participants. Future research should continue to develop and validate less invasive monitoring tools (e.g., salivary hormone assays, wearable sensors) and refine statistical methods for handling the complex, intensive longitudinal data these studies generate. By prioritizing both scientific rigor and the participant experience, researchers can ensure that the field produces reliable, actionable insights into female endocrinology.

Incorporating Menstrual Cycle Tracking into Existing Clinical Trial Protocols

The historical exclusion of people who menstruate from clinical trials has created significant gaps in our understanding of how investigational drugs affect the menstrual cycle and how cyclical hormonal variations influence drug efficacy and safety [72]. The recent experience with COVID-19 vaccinations—where reported menstrual changes eroded trust despite the absence of systematic tracking in trials—highlighted this critical methodological gap [72]. Incorporating validated menstrual cycle tracking into clinical trial protocols is therefore essential not only for comprehensive safety profiling but also for advancing our understanding of female physiology in pharmaceutical development.

This technical guide establishes a framework for integrating menstrual cycle monitoring within existing clinical trial structures, contextualized within broader efforts to standardize menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature across research disciplines. For clinical researchers, this represents a paradigm shift from treating the menstrual cycle as confounding noise to recognizing it as a critical vital sign that requires systematic measurement [30] [19].

Physiological Basis for Cycle Tracking in Clinical Trials

Menstrual Cycle as a Multidimensional System

The menstrual cycle encompasses three interrelated cycles: the ovarian cycle (follicular development and ovulation), the hormonal cycle (fluctuations in reproductive hormones), and the endometrial cycle (uterine lining changes) [19]. These complex, dynamic systems interact to create what some professional associations term the "fifth vital sign" [30]. A eumenorrheic (healthy) cycle is characterized by regular lengths (typically 24-38 days), confirmed ovulation evidenced by a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, and an adequate luteal phase with sufficient progesterone production [19].

Critically, regular menstrual bleeding does not guarantee normal ovulatory function. Studies using direct hormonal measurements have revealed that up to 66% of exercising females experience subtle menstrual disturbances despite regular cycles, with these disturbances having potential implications for drug metabolism and physiological responses [19]. This underscores why simple calendar-based counting is methodologically insufficient for research purposes and must be replaced with direct measurement approaches.

Limitations of Assumed and Estimated Cycle Phases

Recent research practices of using assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases based solely on calendar counting or bleeding patterns represent a significant methodological concern [19]. Such approaches amount to "guessing" hormonal status and risk generating invalid and unreliable data due to:

• High prevalence of undetected anovulatory cycles in apparently regular cycles
• Significant variability in follicular phase length between individuals and cycles
• Inadequate luteal phases despite regular cycle length
• Misattribution of hormonal phases based solely on bleeding patterns

As [19] emphatically states, "Assuming or estimating menstrual cycle phases is neither a valid (i.e., how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure) nor reliable (i.e., a concept describing how reproducible or replicable a method is) methodological approach." The implications for clinical trials are substantial, as hormonal variations can influence drug pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and side effect profiles.

Validated Methodologies for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination

Direct Measurement Technologies

Table 1: Validated Methodologies for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination in Clinical Research

Method Category	Specific Technologies	Measured Parameters	Strength of Evidence	Considerations for Trial Implementation
Urine Hormone Monitoring	Mira Fertility Monitor, Clearblue Connected Ovulation Test System, Inito Fertility Monitor	FSH, E1G, LH, PdG (urine metabolites)	High - Multiple validation studies against ultrasound and serum hormones [8] [30]	Quantitative data suitable for statistical analysis; home-based use possible
Wearable Sensors	Tempdrop, Ava, Oura Ring, Huawei Band 5	Basal body temperature, heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature	Moderate-High - Good prediction accuracy for ovulation and phases in regular cycles [6] [73]	Continuous data collection; minimal participant burden; algorithm validation needed
Serum Hormone Assessment	CLIA, ELISA, LC-MS/MS	Estradiol, progesterone, LH, FSH	Gold Standard - Direct hormone measurement [30] [19]	Requires clinic visits; expensive; single timepoints may miss dynamic changes
Ultrasound Monitoring	Transvaginal or abdominal ultrasound	Follicle development, endometrial thickness, ovulation confirmation	Gold Standard - Direct visualization of ovarian changes [30] [73]	Resource-intensive; requires specialized equipment and personnel

Emerging Machine Learning Approaches

Advanced machine learning algorithms that integrate multiple physiological parameters show significant promise for accurate cycle phase classification. Recent studies demonstrate that random forest models can achieve 87% accuracy in classifying three main menstrual phases (menstruation, ovulation, luteal) using wearable sensor data including skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval, and heart rate [6]. These multi-parameter approaches substantially outperform single-method predictions and can adapt to individual cycle variations.

For fertile window prediction, algorithms combining basal body temperature and heart rate data have achieved 87.46% accuracy in regular menstruators, though performance decreases to 72.51% in irregular cycles, highlighting the need for method validation in specific populations [73]. The implementation of these technologies in clinical trials should include validation against established reference methods during the study design phase.

Integration Framework for Clinical Trial Protocols

Minimum Reporting Standards and Phase Definitions

Consistent with the call for standardized nomenclature in menstrual research [19], trials should establish a priori criteria for menstrual cycle phase definitions based on direct hormonal measurements. The following dot language diagram illustrates a standardized workflow for menstrual cycle phase determination in clinical trials:

Diagram 1: Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination Workflow

Practical Implementation Considerations

Successful integration of menstrual cycle tracking requires addressing several practical considerations:

• Participant Burden: At-home urine hormone monitors and wearable sensors minimize clinic visits while providing quantitative data [8] [30]
• Data Integration: Electronic data capture systems should accommodate daily cycle tracking data alongside traditional clinical trial metrics
• Irregular Cycle Protocols: Specific algorithms and analysis plans must be pre-specified for participants with irregular cycles, as prediction accuracy decreases substantially in this population [73]
• Cycle Variability: Protocols should account for intra-individual cycle variability by tracking multiple consecutive cycles when possible

The Quantum Menstrual Health Monitoring Study protocol offers a validated template, combining at-home urine hormone monitoring (Mira monitor) with serial ultrasounds and serum hormone correlations across multiple cycles [30]. This approach demonstrates the feasibility of comprehensive cycle tracking in research settings.

Analytical and Statistical Considerations

Data Analysis Framework

Menstrual cycle data introduces unique analytical challenges that must be addressed in statistical analysis plans:

• Cycle Alignment: Strategies for aligning cycles by ovulation day or LH surge rather than menstrual onset alone
• Within-Subject Variability: Mixed-effects models to account for multiple observations per participant across cycles
• Phase-Based Analysis: Pre-specified analysis of outcomes by confirmed hormonal phases rather than calendar time
• Missing Data: Strategies for handling missing cycle tracking data, which is common in longitudinal designs

The high prevalence of subtle menstrual disturbances necessitates transparent reporting of how cycles were classified and analyzed. Studies should clearly distinguish between "naturally menstruating" participants (based on bleeding patterns alone) and "eumenorrheic" participants (with confirmed ovulation and adequate hormonal profiles) [19].

Sample Size Considerations

Menstrual cycle tracking protocols impact sample size calculations through:

• Within-Subject Designs: Increased statistical power from repeated measures across cycle phases
• Attrition Considerations: Higher participant burden may increase dropout rates, requiring oversampling
• Cycle Exclusion Criteria: Pre-defined criteria for excluding anovulatory or inadequate luteal phase cycles from phase-based analyses

Previous successful studies have targeted approximately 50 participants with 3 cycles each (150 total cycles) to detect differences of 0.5 days in ovulation timing with adequate power [30].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Menstrual Cycle Tracking

Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
Urine Hormone Monitors	Mira Fertility Monitor, Clearblue Connected Ovulation Test System	At-home quantitative hormone tracking	Measures FSH, E1G, LH, PdG; provides numerical values for statistical analysis [8] [30]
Wearable Sensors	Oura Ring, Tempdrop, Huawei Band 5, EmbracePlus	Continuous physiological monitoring	Collects temperature, HR, HRV, sleep data; enables machine learning approaches [6] [73]
Point-of-Care Tests	LH surge tests, progesterone tests	Ovulation confirmation	Qualitative results; limited to single hormone measurement [73]
Digital Platforms	Natural Cycles, Clue, Read Your Body	Symptom and cycle tracking	Various prediction algorithms; data export capabilities vary [74] [75]
Validation Assays	ELISA, LC-MS/MS kits for reproductive hormones	Method validation against gold standards	Serum-based validation of at-home monitoring methods [30]

Incorporating validated menstrual cycle tracking into clinical trial protocols represents a methodological imperative for generating clinically relevant, sex-specific pharmacological data. The existing technologies—particularly quantitative urine hormone monitors and multi-parameter wearable sensors—provide feasible, validated approaches that can be integrated into existing trial structures with minimal disruption.

As the field moves toward consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, clinical trialists have an opportunity to contribute high-quality data that advances both therapeutic development and fundamental understanding of female physiology. By replacing assumptions and estimations with direct measurements, we can ensure that clinical research adequately addresses the health needs of all populations, including those who menstruate.

The investigation of comorbid conditions, such as Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), presents significant methodological challenges for researchers and drug development professionals. These conditions exemplify the complexity of women's health disorders where psychological and endocrine manifestations intersect, creating a web of diagnostic and analytical complications. Within the broader context of establishing consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, understanding the relationship between PMDD and PCOS requires sophisticated approaches to data interpretation that account for shared pathophysiological mechanisms, temporal symptom patterns, and measurement limitations inherent in comorbidity research.

The conceptualization of comorbidity itself remains fraught with foundational issues, including heterogeneous definitions and an inadequate nosological system that struggles to categorize conditions with overlapping symptomatology [76]. When studying PMDD and PCOS, researchers must navigate the challenge of distinguishing between true comorbidities (distinct clinical entities with unique pathophysiology) versus manifestations of a single underlying disorder with multiple clinical presentations. This distinction carries profound implications for research design, outcome measurement, and therapeutic development in women's health.

Establishing the PMDD-PCOS Association: Epidemiological Evidence

Recent large-scale epidemiological studies have provided compelling evidence for a significant association between PCOS and subsequent development of PMDD. A nationwide register-based cohort study conducted in Sweden offers the most robust quantitative data to date, illuminating the strength of this relationship while controlling for potential confounders.

Key Findings from the Swedish National Registry Study

A landmark study tracking 2,965,178 females in Sweden from 2001 to 2018 identified 41,515 individuals with PCOS diagnoses and examined their risk of developing PMDD during a median follow-up of 15.3 years [77] [78]. The findings revealed a significantly elevated risk profile among those with PCOS, with important implications for both clinical practice and research methodology.

Table 1: PMDD Risk Among Individuals with PCOS in the Swedish National Registry Study

Analysis Type	Hazard Ratio	95% Confidence Interval	Person-Years Incidence
Age-adjusted	2.26	2.14–2.39	4.67/1000 person-years
Fully adjusted*	1.54	1.46–1.63	-
Sibling comparison	1.61	1.36–1.92	-

Adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic factors, comorbid psychiatric disorders, and obesity *Accounting for shared genetic and familial environmental factors [77]

The Swedish study implemented a rigorous methodological approach to address potential confounding. PCOS cases were identified from clinical diagnoses in national registers after 1990, when standardized diagnostic criteria were established, and exclusion criteria removed individuals with conditions presenting similar symptoms to ensure diagnostic specificity [77]. PMDD cases were identified through both clinical diagnoses and prescription records with clear indications for PMDD treatment, capturing cases diagnosed in primary care settings that might be missed in specialist registries alone.

Stratified Analysis and Confounding Considerations

Further stratification of the data revealed that the association between PCOS and PMDD remained statistically significant regardless of psychiatric comorbidity status, with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.47) for individuals with preexisting psychiatric comorbidities and 1.55 (95% CI 1.45–1.65) for those without [77]. This suggests that the relationship cannot be entirely explained by shared psychiatric vulnerability, pointing instead toward potential shared endocrine mechanisms or common underlying pathophysiological pathways.

The sibling comparison component of the study provided particularly compelling evidence, as it controlled for unmeasured genetic and environmental factors shared within families. The persistence of the association in this analysis (HR: 1.61) indicates that the PCOS-PMDD relationship is unlikely to be fully explained by familial risk factors alone [77].

Methodological Challenges in Comorbidity Research

Research into comorbid conditions like PMDD and PCOS faces significant methodological hurdles that must be addressed through careful study design and analytical techniques. These challenges span the domains of measurement, classification, and data interpretation.

Conceptual and Nosological Limitations

The very concept of "comorbidity" carries implicit assumptions that may not align with biological reality. The term has been used interchangeably in literature to describe both "coexisting diseases" (multiple pathology without an index condition) and "cooccurring diseases" (conditions that cluster beyond chance) [76]. This definitional heterogeneity creates challenges for synthesizing evidence across studies and establishing consistent diagnostic criteria.

The nosological systems underlying both PMDD and PCOS diagnoses present additional complications. Diagnostic classifications like ICD and DSM employ operational rather than theory-based diagnostic criteria, potentially creating artificial separations between conditions that share underlying mechanisms [76]. The diagnostic proliferation observed in these systems may pathologize multiple manifestations of a single underlying process, complicating comorbidity research.

Measurement Error and Data Source Limitations

The measurement of comorbidity introduces significant potential for error across all variable axes considered in health care research: confounding, modifying, independent, and dependent variables [79]. Different data sources used in comorbidity research each present distinct advantages and disadvantages:

Table 2: Data Sources for Comorbidity Measurement and Their Methodological Limitations

Data Source	Advantages	Disadvantages
Medical Records	Detailed clinical information; reflects clinician decision-making	Resource-intensive; variable quality across sites and time; privacy issues
Patient Self-Report	Comprehensive history; efficient data collection	Recall bias; potential for dependent errors
Administrative Databases	Large sample sizes; pre-collected data	Variable quality; missing data; coding for reimbursement rather than accuracy
Clinical Judgment	Simple; corresponds to clinical practice	Oversimplifies complexity; privacy concerns [79]

When comorbidity is treated as a confounder, nondifferential misclassification generally biases effect estimates toward the null, potentially obscuring true relationships [79]. This has particular relevance for PMDD and PCOS research, where diagnostic precision may vary substantially across clinical settings.

Analytical Approaches for Comorbidity Networks

Advanced statistical methods have been developed to address the complexity of comorbidity relationships, particularly through the construction of disease comorbidity networks from longitudinal data. These approaches move beyond simple pairwise associations to model the complex web of disease relationships.

Several statistical methods are available for constructing weighted directed comorbidity networks, each with distinct strengths for capturing different aspects of comorbidity patterns [80]:

• Relative Risk (RR) and Observed-to-Expected Ratio: Measures comorbidity strength by comparing observed co-occurrence to expected frequency under independence, though it tends to overestimate linkages between rare diseases and underestimate those between prevalent diseases [80]

• ϕ-Correlation: Captures association between disease pairs but underestimates associations when one disease is rare and the other prevalent [80]

• Statistical Significance Testing: Uses null models to identify non-random comorbidity patterns, producing sparser networks that facilitate interpretation of disease progression pathways [80]

These network approaches enable researchers to move beyond simple comorbidity counts toward understanding the temporal sequences of disease development and the complex pathways that connect conditions like PMDD and PCOS to other disorders.

Experimental Protocols for Investigating PMDD-PCOS Comorbidity

Research into the mechanisms underlying the PMDD-PCOS relationship requires specialized methodological approaches that account for the endocrine, genetic, and neuropsychiatric dimensions of both conditions.

Endocrine and Anthropometric Assessment Protocols

A 2021 study investigating the potential role of prenatal androgen exposure in PMDD development provides a valuable methodological framework for assessing endocrine contributions to comorbid presentations [81]. The study employed precise anthropometric measurements as proxies for prenatal hormone exposure:

Participant Selection Criteria:

• Women aged 18-45 with regular menstruation
• Nulliparous with no pregnancy exceeding 10 weeks
• No current hormonal treatments or history of hormonal disorders
• No genital region injuries, surgeries, or congenital abnormalities

Anthropometric Measurement Protocol:

• CUMD (clitoris-to-urethra distance): Measured from underside of clitoral glans to center of urinary meatus using digital caliper
• AGD-AC (anus-to-clitoris distance): Measured from center of anus to anterior clitoral surface
• AGD-AF (anus-to-fourchette distance): Measured from center of anus to posterior fourchette
• Digit Ratios (2D:4D): Photographic measurement of index and ring finger lengths from bottom crease to fingertip

All measurements were performed in triplicate by two independent examiners, with the mean of six measurements used for analysis to enhance reliability [81]. The study found that patients with PMDD had significantly longer CUMD than controls (25.03 ± 4.73 mm vs. 22.07 ± 4.30 mm, P = 0.008), suggesting a potential role for atypical prenatal androgen exposure in PMDD susceptibility [81].

Hormonal Assessment Methodologies

Comprehensive investigation of the endocrine aspects of PMDD-PCOS comorbidity requires precise protocols for hormonal assessment across menstrual cycle phases:

Critical Methodological Considerations:

• Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination: Reliance on assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases without direct hormonal measurement represents a significant methodological limitation [19]. The calendar-based method of counting days between periods cannot reliably detect subtle menstrual disturbances like anovulatory or luteal phase deficient cycles, which may be particularly relevant in PCOS populations [19].

• Direct Hormonal Verification: Research protocols should include direct measurement of luteinizing hormone (LH) surge via urine detection and luteal phase progesterone verification through blood or saliva sampling to accurately phase menstrual cycles [19].

• Neuroactive Steroid Assessment: Evaluation of neuroactive steroids like allopregnanolone is particularly relevant given their implication in both PCOS and reproductive-related mood disorders [82]. These measurements should be timed to specific menstrual cycle phases confirmed through direct hormonal assessment.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for PMDD-PCOS Comorbidity Investigations

Research Tool	Specific Application	Methodological Function
Digital Caliper	Anthropometric measurements (CUMD, AGD)	Precise physical assessment of androgen-sensitive structures [81]
LH Urine Test Kits	Menstrual cycle phase confirmation	Detection of LH surge to confirm ovulation timing [19]
ELISA Kits	Hormone quantification (progesterone, testosterone, allopregnanolone)	Standardized measurement of serum/plasma/saliva hormone levels [81] [82]
Structured Clinical Interviews	Psychiatric symptom assessment (PMDD, depression, anxiety)	Standardized diagnostic confirmation and comorbidity assessment [77] [82]
Symptom Tracking Software	Prospective daily symptom monitoring	Documentation of temporal symptom patterns relative to menstrual cycle [83]

Implications for Research and Drug Development

The complex relationship between PMDD and PCOS carries significant implications for clinical trial design, therapeutic development, and regulatory considerations in women's health.

Clinical Trial Design Considerations

Research into treatments for either condition must account for their potential comorbidity through careful screening and stratification:

• Participant Screening: Trials for PCOS treatments should include PMDD screening, and vice versa, to enable subgroup analyses of treatment effects in comorbid populations
• Menstrual Cycle Considerations: Clinical trials must implement direct verification of menstrual cycle phases rather than relying on participant self-report to ensure accurate phase-specific assessments [19]
• Endpoint Selection: Composite endpoints capturing both endocrine and psychiatric outcomes may be necessary to fully characterize treatment effects in comorbid populations

Neuroactive Steroids as Therapeutic Targets

The role of neuroactive steroids, particularly allopregnanolone, represents a promising therapeutic target for both conditions. Allopregnanolone has been implicated in several reproductive-related psychiatric disorders including PMDD and postpartum depression, and alterations in its synthesis or metabolism may contribute to the psychiatric symptoms observed in women with PCOS [82]. Drug development efforts targeting GABAergic neurosteroid systems may yield treatments with efficacy for both the mood symptoms of PMDD and the endocrine features of PCOS.

The investigation of comorbid PMDD and PCOS highlights the critical need for methodological rigor and conceptual clarity in women's health research. The association between these conditions, with a 54-61% increased risk of PMDD among those with PCOS even after controlling for confounders [77], underscores the importance of shared biological mechanisms that transcend simplistic diagnostic boundaries.

Future research must prioritize:

• Direct measurement of menstrual cycle phases rather than estimation [19]
• Prospective designs tracking hormonal and symptomatic fluctuations across confirmed cycles
• Integration of multiple data sources to capture the full spectrum of comorbid presentations
• Application of advanced statistical methods like network analysis to elucidate complex disease relationships [80]

As the field moves toward consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, the methodological approaches outlined in this technical guide provide a framework for generating robust, reproducible evidence regarding the complex interplay between endocrine and psychiatric conditions in women's health. Through rigorous attention to measurement, design, and analysis, researchers can advance our understanding of these complex comorbidities and develop more effective, targeted interventions for affected individuals.

Evaluating Methodological Rigor and Comparative Impacts on Research Outcomes

In the burgeoning field of menstrual cycle research, the validity and reliability of methodological approaches constitute the foundation upon which scientific and clinical advancements are built. The recent expansion of female-specific research has exposed significant methodological challenges, particularly concerning how menstrual cycle phases are defined and measured [19]. Assumptions and estimations of cycle phases, often employed for pragmatic reasons in field-based studies, amount to little more than educated guesses that compromise data integrity and clinical applicability [19]. This framework establishes a comprehensive approach for critiquing menstrual cycle research, with particular emphasis on methodological considerations essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals engaged in consensus-building around phase definitions and nomenclature.

The consequences of methodological weakness in this domain extend beyond academic circles to affect real-world applications. When research relies on assumed or estimated cycle phases rather than direct hormonal measurements, the resulting data may lead to inappropriate training recommendations for athletes, suboptimal clinical interventions, and flawed scientific conclusions [19]. Furthermore, the fractured nature of menstrual research across multiple disciplines—including sports science, gynecology, endocrinology, and public health—has hampered the development of standardized approaches and terminology [72]. This technical guide provides a structured framework for evaluating research quality, with the ultimate goal of advancing more rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful studies of menstrual cycle impacts on health and performance.

Foundational Concepts: Validity and Reliability in Menstrual Cycle Research

Conceptual Definitions and Their Application

In the context of menstrual cycle research, validity refers to how accurately a method measures the specific menstrual cycle characteristic or phase it intends to assess, while reliability denotes the consistency and reproducibility of these measurements over repeated applications [19]. These concepts form the bedrock of methodological quality and must be carefully evaluated in any critical appraisal of menstrual cycle studies.

The physiological complexity of the menstrual cycle presents unique challenges for both validity and reliability. The menstrual cycle encompasses three inter-related cycles: the ovarian cycle (lifecycle of an oocyte), the hormonal cycle (fluctuations in ovarian hormones), and the endometrial cycle (changes in the uterine lining) [19]. Research focused on hormonal effects must prioritize precise phase determination based on direct measurements of relevant biomarkers rather than calendar-based estimates or self-reported symptoms alone. The terminology used to describe menstrual cycles carries specific methodological implications that directly impact validity. Eumenorrhea should be reserved for cycles confirmed through advanced testing to have evidence of a luteinising hormone surge and the correct hormonal profile, whereas naturally menstruating appropriately describes individuals with regular cycle lengths (21-35 days) without confirmed ovulation or hormonal status [19]. This distinction is crucial for interpreting research findings and assessing population characteristics.

Common Methodological Pitfalls

Current literature reveals several persistent threats to validity and reliability in menstrual cycle research:

• Calendar-Based Assumptions: Using cycle day counting without hormonal confirmation represents an indirect estimation that fails to account for inter- and intra-individual variability in cycle length and hormonal profiles [19].
• Symptom-Based Phase Determination: Relying on perceived physical or emotional symptoms to define cycle phases lacks the objectivity required for valid phase classification in research contexts.
• Insufficient Phase Verification: Failing to confirm ovulation and adequate luteal phase progesterone production can lead to misclassification of menstrual phases, particularly given the high prevalence (up to 66%) of subtle menstrual disturbances in exercising females [19].

These methodological shortcomings directly undermine both internal validity (the accuracy of conclusions about menstrual phase effects) and external validity (the generalizability of findings to broader populations).

Methodological Approaches: A Comparative Analysis

Table 1: Methodological Approaches for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Validity Considerations	Reliability Metrics	Practical Limitations
Direct Hormonal Assessment	Serum progesterone & estradiol; Urinary LH detection; Salivary hormone testing	High validity when using established assays with known sensitivity and specificity [19] [46]	Intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV); Inter-assay CV [46]	Resource-intensive; Requires specialized equipment and expertise; Participant burden
Physiological Tracking	Basal Body Temperature (BBT); Wearable sensors (skin temperature, HRV, EDA) [6]	Moderate to high depending on validation against hormonal standards; BBT confirms ovulation but doesn't predict it [6]	Test-retest reliability; Algorithm consistency [6]	Signal interference from external factors; Individual variability in physiological responses
Questionnaire & Self-Report	Validated knowledge assessments [84]; Symptom diaries; Period tracking apps	Dependent on instrument validation; Subject to recall and reporting biases [84] [85]	Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha); Test-retest reliability [84]	Limited to subjective experiences; Variable user engagement with apps [85]
Ultrasound Visualization	Transvaginal ultrasonic folliculometry; Endometrial thickness assessment	Considered gold standard for ovarian cycle tracking [46]	Operator-dependent; Equipment calibration	Clinical setting required; High cost; Participant discomfort

Emerging Technological Approaches

Recent advances in wearable technology and machine learning algorithms have created new methodologies for menstrual cycle tracking. One study applied random forest models to physiological signals (skin temperature, electrodermal activity, interbeat interval, and heart rate) collected from wrist-worn devices, achieving 87% accuracy in classifying three menstrual phases (period, ovulation, luteal) using a fixed window technique [6]. While these approaches show promise for reducing participant burden and enabling field-based research, they require rigorous validation against hormonal standards to establish sufficient validity for research purposes [6].

The regulatory and commercial landscape for menstrual tracking technologies remains complex, with varying levels of evidence supporting different devices and applications. Researchers must critically evaluate the validation data for any commercial product before incorporating it into study designs, paying particular attention to whether validation studies used appropriate reference standards and diverse populations representative of the intended research cohort.

Validation Protocols for Research Instruments

Questionnaire Validation Methodology

The development of valid and reliable assessment tools follows structured protocols that should be transparently reported in research methodologies. A recent example from sports science illustrates a comprehensive approach to questionnaire validation [84]. The process encompassed multiple stages:

• Domain Identification: Following literature review, four knowledge domains were established: (1) Normal Menstrual Cycle Function, (2) Menstrual Cycle Dysfunction, (3) Oral Contraceptive Pills, and (4) Other Hormonal Contraceptives [84].
• Expert Review: Six content experts evaluated initial items for clarity and relevance using a 4-point Likert scale, with good agreement (>80%) serving as the inclusion threshold [84].
• Pre-testing: Athletes and support staff (n=19) participated in cognitive interviews to assess comprehensibility and face validity [84].
• Psychometric Validation: Administration to both "Low Knowledge" (n=156) and "High Knowledge" (n=30) groups assessed construct validity through between-group score comparisons [84].

This validation protocol demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients: 0.93-0.98) and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.93) [84]. The high item discrimination parameters across all domains indicated the instrument effectively differentiated between respondents with varying knowledge levels [84].

Hormonal Assay Validation

For laboratory methods, validation requires demonstration of analytical performance characteristics. A scoping review of salivary and urinary hormone detection methods highlighted key validation parameters [46]:

• Sensitivity: The lowest hormone concentration that can be reliably distinguished from zero.
• Specificity: The assay's ability to measure the intended hormone without cross-reactivity with similar molecules.
• Precision: Quantified through intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) [46].

The review identified concerning inconsistencies in validation reporting and hormone value ranges across studies, making cross-study comparisons challenging [46]. This underscores the necessity for researchers to thoroughly examine assay validation data when selecting methodological approaches or critically evaluating existing literature.

Experimental Protocols for Menstrual Cycle Research

Protocol for Hormonal Phase Verification

For research requiring precise menstrual phase determination, the following protocol adapted from Elliott-Sale et al. provides a rigorous approach [19]:

Participant Screening and Characterization:

• Confirm naturally cycling status (cycle lengths 21-35 days) through retrospective tracking for 2-3 cycles
• Exclude participants using hormonal contraception or medications known to interfere with menstrual function
• Document relevant characteristics: age, gynecological history, physical activity levels, and energy availability

Hormonal Phase Verification:

• Collect serial serum samples across the menstrual cycle (minimum 2-3 samples per week)
• Assess luteinizing hormone (LH) surge using daily urinary detection kits or serum measurements
• Confirm ovulation through mid-luteal phase progesterone levels (>16 nmol/L for 5 days minimum)
• Define hormonally-verified phases based on established criteria [19]:
  • Early follicular phase: Days 1-5 after menstruation onset, low estradiol and progesterone
  • Late follicular phase: 2-3 days before ovulation, rising estradiol, low progesterone
  • Ovulation: LH surge detected in urine or serum
  • Mid-luteal phase: 5-9 days after ovulation, high progesterone, moderate estradiol

Data Analysis and Phase Assignment:

• Align cycle data to the day of ovulation (LH surge day = 0) rather than menstrual onset
• Exclude anovulatory cycles or those with luteal phase deficiency from phase-specific analyses
• Report verification methods transparently in methodology sections

Protocol for Questionnaire Validation

For studies developing self-report instruments or knowledge assessments, the following protocol based on established methodology provides a comprehensive validation approach [84]:

Instrument Development Phase:

• Conduct literature review to define conceptual domains and content areas
• Generate initial item pool with balanced coverage across domains
• Include various question formats (multiple choice, true/false, Likert scales)
• Incorporate "I don't know" options to prevent guessing

Expert Validation Phase:

• Recruit content experts (n=6-8) representing relevant disciplines
• Evaluate each item for clarity and relevance using standardized rating scales
• Calculate content validity indices (CVI) for individual items and overall instrument
• Revise or eliminate items failing to meet predetermined thresholds (typically >80% agreement)

Psychometric Testing Phase:

• Administer instrument to target population for pre-testing (n=15-20)
• Conduct cognitive interviews to assess comprehensibility and face validity
• Administer to larger validation sample (n=150+) representing diverse knowledge levels
• Assess test-retest reliability with sub-sample (n=100+) after 1-3 week interval
• Evaluate internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha for multi-item scales
• Establish construct validity through known-groups comparisons (e.g., experts vs. novices)

Analytical Framework for Critical Appraisal

Table 2: Critical Appraisal Checklist for Menstrual Cycle Research

Domain	Critical Questions	Evidence Indicators	Methodological Red Flags
Phase Definition & Verification	How were menstrual cycle phases defined and verified?	Hormonal verification with clear criteria; Transparent reporting of methods [19]	Calendar-based counting alone; Self-reported regularity without verification; Assumed 28-day cycles
Participant Characterization	How was menstrual status characterized and confirmed?	Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria; Documentation of cycle characteristics; Hormonal confirmation of eumenorrhea [19]	Vague menstrual status descriptions; Failure to report cycle regularity criteria; No documentation of hormonal status
Instrument Validation	Are outcome measures validated for the specific population?	Reported psychometric properties; Evidence of content validity; Appropriate reliability metrics [84]	Use of ad-hoc instruments without validation; Adaptation of tools without re-validation; No reliability reporting
Methodological Transparency	Are limitations in phase determination acknowledged?	Honest reporting of methodological constraints; Discussion of potential misclassification impact [19]	Failure to acknowledge estimation approaches; No discussion of phase determination limitations
Analytical Approach	How are cycles aligned and analyzed?	Alignment to ovulation day; Appropriate statistical models for cyclic data; Handling of within-subject variability	Alignment to menstruation alone; Failure to account for cycle length variability; Treating cyclic data as linear

Application of the Critical Appraisal Framework

When applying this analytical framework, reviewers should consider both the technical adequacy of methodological approaches and the consistency between research questions and measurement strategies. For example, studies investigating subtle performance variations across menstrual phases necessitate more rigorous hormonal verification than exploratory studies examining broad patterns of symptom experience. The framework should be applied proportionately to the study aims and purported contributions.

Additionally, the clinical or practical implications of research findings should be evaluated in light of methodological limitations. Conclusions drawn from studies using estimated cycle phases should be interpreted with appropriate caution, particularly when informing training recommendations, clinical interventions, or product development decisions [19]. Transparent reporting of methodological limitations enables appropriate interpretation and application of research findings.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Menstrual Cycle Studies

Reagent/Material Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
Hormone Detection Assays	Serum ELISA kits for progesterone, estradiol, LH; Salivary hormone immunoassays; Urinary LH dipsticks	Quantitative hormone measurement for phase verification; Ovulation detection [46]	Validate sensitivity for low hormone levels; Establish laboratory-specific reference ranges; Account for assay variability
Point-of-Care Ovulation Tests	Qualitative urinary LH detection kits; Digital ovulation predictors	Determining ovulation timing in field-based research; Participant self-testing [46]	Variable sensitivity between brands; Timing of testing affects detection; Confirmatory testing recommended
Wearable Physiological Monitors	Wrist-based sensors (EDA, skin temperature, HRV); Basal body temperature thermometers; Continuous core temperature patches [6]	Non-invasive longitudinal data collection; Fertile window prediction; Phase classification [6]	Signal accuracy validation required; Individual calibration often necessary; Algorithm transparency varies
Validated Questionnaires	Menstrual Cycle Knowledge Questionnaires [84]; Menstrual Distress Questionnaires; Quality of Life instruments	Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and experiences; Evaluating intervention outcomes [84]	Population-specific validation essential; Linguistic and cultural adaptation may be needed
Menstrual Cycle Tracking Software	Mobile health applications; Digital daily diaries; Web-based tracking platforms [85]	Longitudinal data collection; Symptom pattern identification; Participant engagement [85]	Data privacy and security critical; Interoperability with research systems; Validation against gold standards

The establishment of rigorous methodological standards for menstrual cycle research represents an essential prerequisite for generating valid, reliable, and clinically meaningful evidence. This framework provides researchers, critical appraisers, and drug development professionals with structured approaches to evaluate and enhance methodological quality across diverse study designs and research contexts.

The path forward requires disciplined adherence to direct measurement approaches when investigating hormonally-mediated phenomena, transparent reporting of methodological limitations when pragmatic constraints necessitate estimation approaches, and collaborative consensus-building around standardized terminology and measurement protocols. Only through such rigorous methodological practices can the field advance our understanding of menstrual cycle impacts on health, performance, and wellbeing across diverse populations and contexts.

As research in this domain continues to expand, the critical appraisal framework presented here offers a foundation for evaluating study quality, informing research design decisions, and appropriately interpreting findings in both scientific and applied contexts. Through consistent application of these methodological principles, the field can overcome historical limitations and generate the robust evidence base needed to support the health and performance of menstruating individuals across the lifespan.

Within the context of establishing a consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature, the methodology for determining cycle phase is of paramount importance. Researchers and drug development professionals face significant challenges in selecting appropriate methods for phase determination, balancing accuracy with practical constraints. The fundamental division lies between calendar-based estimation methods, which rely on self-reported menstrual history and counting algorithms, and hormone-confirmed phase determination, which utilizes direct biochemical markers to verify cycle phase and ovulation. This comparative analysis examines the validity, reliability, and appropriate application of these methodologies in research settings, with particular emphasis on their impact on data quality and research outcomes in female physiology and therapeutic development.

Physiological Basis of Menstrual Cycle Phasing

The menstrual cycle comprises complex, interlinked processes between the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis and the endometrium [4]. The cycle is typically divided into phases based on ovarian function (follicular, ovulatory, luteal) and corresponding endometrial changes (menstrual, proliferative, secretory) [4]. These phases are defined by specific hormonal milieus characterized by fluctuating levels of estradiol, progesterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH).

Endogenous Hormone Fluctuations Define Cycle Phases

The follicular phase begins with menses (cycle day 1) and is characterized by rising estradiol levels produced by developing ovarian follicles, with progesterone remaining low [4]. The ovulatory phase features a sharp LH surge triggered by high estradiol levels, leading to follicle rupture and oocyte release approximately 12-18 days before next menses [49]. The luteal phase follows ovulation, during which the corpus luteum secretes progesterone to prepare the endometrium for implantation, with progesterone levels peaking approximately 7 days post-ovulation [4]. If pregnancy does not occur, progesterone and estradiol levels decline, leading to endometrial shedding and the start of a new cycle.

Calendar-Based Estimation Methods

Methodology and Implementation

Calendar-based methods utilize self-reported menstrual history to estimate cycle phases through counting algorithms without hormonal verification. The two primary approaches are:

• Forward Calculation: Counting forward from the first day of menstruation (cycle day 1) based on a presumed 28-day cycle. For example, the ovulatory phase is typically estimated at days 10-14, and the mid-luteal phase at days 17-21 [86] [49].

• Backward Calculation: Estimating phases by counting backward from the anticipated start of the next menstrual cycle based on participant's reported average cycle length. For instance, ovulation is estimated at 12-14 days before the expected next menses [86] [49].

These methods typically classify cycles as "regular" based on self-reported cycle lengths of 21-35 days, with the assumption that regular bleeding patterns indicate normal ovulatory function [44].

Limitations and Methodological Concerns

Substantial evidence questions the validity of calendar-based methods for precise phase determination:

• Poor Accuracy in Ovulation Identification: When progesterone >2 ng/mL was used as the criterion for confirmed ovulation, forward calculation (days 10-14) captured only 18% of ovulatory events, while backward calculation (12-14 days before next menses) identified 59% [86].

• Inability to Detect Menstrual Disturbances: Calendar methods cannot distinguish between ovulatory and anovulatory cycles or identify luteal phase defects, which occur in up to 66% of exercising females yet present with normal cycle lengths [44].

• Significant Inter-Individual Variability: Real-world data from 612,613 cycles demonstrates substantial variation in phase characteristics, with the follicular phase ranging from 10-30 days and luteal phase from 7-17 days [87].

Table 1: Accuracy of Calendar-Based Methods for Identifying Ovulation (Progesterone >2 ng/mL)

Method	Timing	Percentage Meeting Criterion	Key Limitations
Forward Calculation	Days 10-14 from menses	18%	Assumes stereotypical 28-day cycle; ignores individual variability
Backward Calculation	12-14 days before next menses	59%	Dependent on accurate prediction of next menses; cannot account for current cycle variations
Urinary LH Test + Progesterone	1-3 days after positive test	76%	Requires participant compliance; additional cost

Calendar-based methods essentially represent "guesses" rather than measurements and should not be used in research where accurate phase determination is essential [44]. Their continued use despite known limitations represents a significant methodological concern in female-focused research.

Hormone-Confirmed Phase Determination

Methodological Approaches

Hormone-confirmed methodologies utilize direct measurement of biochemical markers to verify cycle phase and ovulation status. These include:

Serum Hormone Assessment

The historical gold standard for phase confirmation involves serial blood sampling with serum hormone analysis:

• Ovulation Confirmation: Progesterone levels >2 ng/mL indicate ovulation has occurred [86]
• Luteal Phase Assessment: Progesterone levels >4.5 ng/mL indicate adequate mid-luteal phase support [86]
• Follicular Phase Confirmation: Low progesterone (<1 ng/mL) with low or rising estradiol [49]

Strategic serial sampling (3-5 days after detected LH surge) captures 68-81% of hormone values indicative of ovulation and 58-75% indicative of luteal phase [86].

Urinary Hormone Metabolites

Advances in urinary hormone monitoring provide less invasive confirmation methods:

• Luteinizing Hormone (LH): Detected in urine 24-36 hours before ovulation [88]
• Pregnanediol Glucuronide (PdG): Urinary metabolite of progesterone; rising levels confirm ovulation [88]
• Estrone-3-Glucuronide (E3G): Urinary metabolite of estradiol; tracks follicular development [88]

Novel smartphone-connected readers (e.g., Inito Fertility Monitor) demonstrate high correlation with laboratory ELISA measurements (CV <5.6% for all hormones) [88].

Basal Body Temperature (BBT) and Physiological Tracking

BBT tracking detects the progesterone-mediated temperature rise (~0.5°F) following ovulation [87]. Newer approaches utilize circadian rhythm-based heart rate monitoring, with machine learning models (XGBoost) demonstrating improved luteal phase classification, particularly in individuals with high sleep timing variability [89].

Experimental Protocols for Hormone Verification

Protocol 1: Serum Hormone Confirmation

• Blood Collection: Morning blood samples within 1 hour of consistent daily time to control for diurnal variations [86]
• Sampling Schedule:
  • Early follicular: 6 consecutive mornings following menses onset
  • Peri-ovulatory/luteal: 8-10 consecutive mornings following positive urinary LH test [86]
• Hormone Assays: Coat-A-Count RIA Assays (or equivalent) with detection sensitivity of 0.1 ng/mL for progesterone; mean intra-assay CV 4.1%, inter-assay CV 6.4% [86]

Protocol 2: Urinary Hormone Monitoring

• Sample Collection: First morning urine provides most concentrated sample [88]
• Testing Schedule: Begin testing on day 8 of cycle; continue daily until ovulation confirmed [86] [88]
• Ovulation Confirmation: Urinary PdG rise >4.0 μg/mL following LH peak provides 100% specificity for ovulation confirmation [88]

Protocol 3: Combined Approach for Research

• Participant Criteria: Naturally menstruating women aged 18-35; consistent cycles (26-32 days); no hormonal contraception past 6 months; recreationally active [86]
• Cycle Monitoring:
  • Menstrual diary with onset of mentes marked
  • Urinary LH kits beginning day 8 until positive test
  • Strategic serum sampling during early follicular and post-ovulatory periods [86]
• Phase Classification:
  • Early follicular: First 6 days of menses with low progesterone
  • Peri-ovulatory: 1-3 days after positive LH test
  • Mid-luteal: 7-9 days after positive LH test with progesterone >4.5 ng/mL [86]

Comparative Analysis: Quantitative Data

Table 2: Methodological Comparison for Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination

Parameter	Calendar-Based Estimation	Hormone-Confirmed Determination
Ovulation Identification Accuracy	18-59% [86]	76-100% [86] [88]
Detection of Anovulatory Cycles	Not possible	100% with PdG monitoring [88]
Luteal Phase Deficiency Detection	Not possible	Possible with progesterone <4.5 ng/mL [86]
Participant Burden	Low	Moderate to High
Cost Considerations	Low	Moderate to High
Methodological Validity	Low (essentially "guessing") [44]	High (direct measurement)
Inter-Cycle Variability Accounting	Poor	Excellent
Suitability for Research	Limited to coarse screening	Recommended for precise phase determination

Impact on Research Outcomes

The method of phase determination significantly impacts research quality and conclusions:

• Inconsistent Phase Assignment: Cohen's kappa estimates between self-report and hormone-confirmed methods range from -0.13 to 0.53, indicating disagreement to only moderate agreement [49]

• Subtle Menstrual Disturbances: Calendar methods miss up to 66% of menstrual disturbances in athletic populations, potentially confounding research outcomes [44]

• Cycle Characteristics Variability: Real-world data shows follicular phase length varies from 10-30 days and luteal phase from 7-17 days across 612,613 cycles [87]

Table 3: Real-World Menstrual Cycle Characteristics (n=612,613 cycles) [87]

Cycle Parameter	Mean Duration (days)	95% Confidence Interval	Clinical Assumption
Total Cycle Length	29.3	21-35	28 days
Follicular Phase	16.9	10-30	14 days
Luteal Phase	12.4	7-17	14 days
Bleed Length	5.3	3-7	5-7 days

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials for Hormone-Confirmed Menstrual Cycle Research

Research Reagent	Function	Application Notes
Urinary LH Test Kits (e.g., CVS One Step Ovulation Predictor)	Detects LH surge 24-36 hours pre-ovulation	Begin testing cycle day 8; consistent daily timing; visual or digital readout [86]
Serum Progesterone RIA Assays (e.g., Siemens Coat-A-Count TKPG-2)	Quantifies serum progesterone for ovulation and luteal phase confirmation	Detection sensitivity 0.1 ng/mL; intra-assay CV 4.1%; progesterone >2 ng/mL indicates ovulation [86]
Urinary PdG/E3G ELISA Kits (e.g., Arbor EIA Kits)	Measures urinary metabolites of progesterone and estradiol	Less invasive than serum; high correlation with serum hormones; first morning urine recommended [88]
Smartphone-Connected Hormone Monitors (e.g., Inito Fertility Monitor)	Quantitative measurement of urinary LH, PdG, E3G	Mobile app integration; CV <5.6% for all hormones; provides fertility scores [88]
Basal Body Temperature (BBT) Devices	Detects post-ovulatory temperature rise	Measures subtle shifts (~0.5°F); requires consistent morning measurement before activity [87]

Within the broader context of establishing menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature standards, this comparative analysis demonstrates the superiority of hormone-confirmed methods over calendar-based estimation for research applications. The evidence consistently shows that calendar-based counting methods lack the precision required for rigorous scientific investigation, particularly in studies examining subtle physiological effects across cycle phases.

For research requiring accurate phase determination, the following consensus recommendations emerge:

• Phase Determination Should Rely on Direct Measurement rather than assumptions or estimations [44]. Calendar-based methods should be reserved for population-level screening where precise phase timing is not critical.

• Multi-Method Approaches Enhance Accuracy - Combining urinary LH testing with subsequent progesterone verification (serum or urinary) provides optimal balance of accuracy and practicality [86] [88].

• Transparent Reporting of Methodological Limitations is essential when resource constraints prevent ideal hormone confirmation [44].

• Standardized Terminology should distinguish between "naturally menstruating" (cycle length 21-35 days without hormonal confirmation) and "eumenorrheic" (confirmed ovulation and adequate luteal phase) participants [44].

As research in female physiology advances, methodological rigor in menstrual cycle phase determination becomes increasingly critical. The field must move beyond convenient assumptions and embrace evidence-based methodologies that account for the substantial inter-individual and intra-individual variability in menstrual cycle characteristics. Only through such rigorous approaches can we generate reliable, reproducible data to advance women's health research and therapeutic development.

The growing recognition of the menstrual cycle as a critical biological variable in clinical research and pharmacotherapy has catalyzed the development of standardized frameworks for phase-dependent dosing studies. Historically, hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle were considered confounding factors to be controlled rather than meaningful variables influencing drug metabolism, efficacy, and safety profiles. However, emerging evidence demonstrates that the cyclical variations in estrogen and progesterone significantly modulate physiological systems relevant to drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). This whitepaper synthesizes current evidence and methodological approaches for investigating how menstrual cycle phase affects clinical outcomes and adverse event profiles, operating within the evolving consensus on menstrual cycle nomenclature and phase definitions established by recent international consensus statements [20].

The imperative for this research is twofold: first, to optimize therapeutic efficacy through chronopharmacological approaches tailored to female physiology; and second, to identify and mitigate phase-dependent adverse drug reactions that may otherwise be overlooked in clinical trials that either exclude female participants or fail to account for cyclic hormonal variations. This document provides researchers and drug development professionals with evidence-based methodologies, analytical frameworks, and standardized definitions essential for rigorous investigation of phase-dependent dosing effects.

Menstrual Cycle Phase Definitions: Establishing a Consensus Nomenclature

The foundation of valid phase-dependent dosing research rests upon precise, biologically-verified menstrual cycle phase definitions. Recent consensus statements have established standardized terminology and operational definitions to enable cross-study comparisons and validate temporal associations between hormonal status and clinical outcomes.

Table 1: Standardized Menstrual Cycle Phase Definitions Based on Hormonal Criteria

Phase Name	Timing	Hormonal Profile	Verification Methods
Early Follicular Phase	Days 1-5 (cycle days 3-5 for assessment)	Low estradiol, low progesterone, rising FSH	Serum hormones (E2 < 50 pg/mL, P4 < 1 ng/mL) [90]
Late Follicular Phase	Days 11-13 (variable)	High estradiol, low progesterone, LH surge preceding ovulation	Serum E2 > 80 pg/mL, P4 < 1 ng/mL, urinary LH surge detection [91] [90]
Ovulation	~Day 14 (mid-cycle)	LH and FSH peaks, estradiol peak followed by decline	Urinary LH surge confirmation, serum LH > 20 IU/L [91]
Mid-Luteal Phase	7 days post-ovulation (cycle days 20-22)	High progesterone, high estradiol	Serum P4 > 5 ng/mL, confirmed ovulation via basal body temperature or prior LH surge [91] [90]

The European Federation of Sports Medicine Associations consensus emphasizes that phase determination must extend beyond calendar-based estimates to incorporate hormonal verification, as cycle length and phase duration demonstrate substantial inter-individual variability [20]. The recommended methodology involves serum hormone assessment at each test point, with ovulation confirmation via luteinizing hormone (LH) surge detection in urine or blood [91] [90]. This precision is critical for phase-dependent dosing studies where misclassification of cycle phase can obscure genuine treatment effects or create spurious associations.

Methodological Considerations for Phase-Dependent Clinical Research

Subject Selection and Characterization

Research populations must be carefully characterized to control for confounding variables. Inclusion criteria should specify naturally menstruating females (not using hormonal contraception) with eumenorrheic cycles (21-35 days) confirmed by prospective tracking for ≥3 cycles [91]. Key exclusion criteria typically include: hormonal medication use; pregnancy or breastfeeding within previous 6 months; conditions affecting ovarian function; and irregular spotting [91]. Recent consensus recommendations further emphasize accounting for intrinsic (e.g., age, parity) and extrinsic factors (e.g., stress, energy availability) that may modulate menstrual cycle characteristics and drug responses [92].

Standardized Data Collection and Outcome Measures

The Consensus Recommendations for Measuring Contraceptive-Induced Menstrual Changes highlight the imperative for patient-centered outcomes and standardized data collection methods in female physiology research [92] [93]. Core measures should include:

• Hormonal verification: Serum estradiol, progesterone, LH, and FSH at each assessment time point [90]
• Cycle monitoring: Prospective daily tracking of bleeding patterns, symptoms, and cycle length [20]
• Patient-reported outcomes: Standardized measures of symptom burden, function, and treatment satisfaction [92]
• Pharmacokinetic parameters: Time-series measurement of drug concentrations, clearance rates, and metabolite formation
• Clinical endpoints: Phase-specific efficacy measures and adverse event documentation

The UEFA consensus statement provides a validated menstrual cycle and symptom diary template that can be adapted for pharmaceutical research contexts [20].

Current Evidence: Menstrual Cycle Phase Effects on Performance and Clinical Outcomes

Cognitive Performance and Mood Outcomes

Recent rigorous investigations demonstrate measurable but complex relationships between menstrual cycle phase and cognitive performance, with implications for central nervous system-targeted therapeutics.

Table 2: Menstrual Cycle Phase Effects on Cognitive Performance and Mood

Outcome Domain	Assessment Method	Phase-Specific Findings	Clinical Implications
Cognitive Performance	Attention, inhibition, and spatial anticipation tasks [91]	Faster reaction times during ovulation (p < 0.01); slower RTs in luteal phase (p < 0.01); more errors in follicular phase (p = 0.01)	Dosing of psychotropics, stimulants, and cognitive enhancers may require phase adjustment
Mood and Symptoms	Validated mood and symptom questionnaires [91]	Worse mood and symptoms during menstruation across athletic levels; no correlation with objective cognitive performance	Discordance between subjective experience and objective performance highlights nocebo potential
Symptom Burden	Daily symptom monitoring [94]	Higher daily symptom burden associated with poorer sleep quality (p < 0.01) and reduced recovery (p < 0.01)	Symptom burden may confound drug adherence and effectiveness assessments

A pivotal study investigating cognitive performance across menstrual phases found that athletic engagement had a stronger effect on cognitive performance than menstrual phase itself, with inactive participants performing worse across tasks compared to active counterparts [91]. This finding underscores the importance of considering lifestyle factors as potential effect modifiers in phase-dependent dosing studies.

Physical Performance and Error Risk

Research on sport performance provides insights into neuromuscular function and injury risk across menstrual phases, with relevance for phase-dependent dosing of medications affecting coordination, reaction time, or pain perception.

A study examining error scores in sport-specific movements found no statistically significant differences in Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) and Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS) between menstruation and ovulation phases, suggesting these functional assessments can be consistently applied across cycles [95]. However, the study did identify significantly increased knee laxity during ovulation (p < 0.05), a finding with potential implications for injury risk and analgesic requirements [95].

Elite athlete studies further demonstrate that symptom burden—rather than cycle phase per se—may be the most clinically relevant variable affecting subjective experiences of performance and recovery [94]. In basketball players, higher daily symptom burden was consistently associated with poorer sleep quality, reduced recovery, and elevated stress, while cycle phases showed only limited and inconsistent associations [94]. This distinction between physiological phase and symptomatic experience has crucial implications for adverse event reporting in clinical trials.

Experimental Protocols for Phase-Dependent Dosing Research

Comprehensive Phase-Based Clinical Trial Design

The IMPACT study protocol provides a rigorous methodological framework for investigating phase-dependent treatment effects [90]. This randomized, controlled trial design evaluates periodized training interventions across multiple menstrual cycles, incorporating key methodological elements essential for phase-dependent dosing research:

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for phase-dependent clinical trials

This model features three essential components:

• Baseline Run-In Cycle: Comprehensive assessment at multiple predetermined cycle phases (early follicular, late follicular, mid-luteal) establishes individual baselines and confirms cycle regularity [90]
• Randomized Intervention: Participants are stratified to phase-specific or continuous intervention arms
• Endpoint Assessment: Final evaluations are conducted across all menstrual phases to capture phase-dependent treatment effects

Hormonal Verification and Phase Confirmation Protocol

Accurate phase determination requires a multi-modal approach:

• Daily symptom and basal body temperature tracking: Participant-maintained records throughout study duration
• Urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) testing: Daily during fertile window to pinpoint ovulation
• Serum hormone confirmation: Venipuncture at each assessment time point for estradiol, progesterone, LH, and FSH [90]
• Standardized testing conditions: Consistent time of day, fasting status, and prior activity restrictions

The UEFA consensus emphasizes that phase determination should combine hormonal measurements with cycle tracking to account for individual variability in cycle length and hormonal responsiveness [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies for Phase-Dependent Dosing Studies

Reagent/Method	Specifications	Research Application	Validation Requirements
Serum Hormone Assays	Estradiol, progesterone, LH, FSH by ELISA or LC-MS/MS	Phase confirmation at each assessment point	≤20% inter-assay CV; standard curve range covering physiological variation
Urinary LH Tests	Qualitative immunochromatographic tests with ≥99% ovulation detection sensitivity	At-home ovulation prediction for phase timing	CE-marked or FDA-cleared for ovulation detection
Menstrual Cycle Diary	Validated daily symptom and bleeding tracker [20]	Prospective monitoring of cycle characteristics and symptoms	Demonstrated test-retest reliability in target population
Hormone Storage Supplies	Cryogenic vials, -80°C freezer	Biobanking for batch analysis	Documentation of hormone stability under storage conditions
Cognitive Assessment Battery	Computerized reaction time, attention, and spatial anticipation tasks [91]	Evaluation of CNS-related drug effects	Established normative data by menstrual phase

Analytical Approaches for Phase-Dependent Data

The complex, longitudinal nature of phase-dependent dosing studies requires specialized statistical approaches. Linear mixed models are recommended to account for repeated measures and intra-individual variation across cycles [94]. These models should include random intercepts for participants to control for inherent individual differences in hormone responsiveness and drug metabolism.

Key analytical considerations include:

• Missing data management: Planned strategies for intermittent missing phase data or participant dropout
• Phase transition modeling: Time-varying approaches that account for gradual hormonal shifts rather than abrupt phase transitions
• Symptom co-variation: Adjustment for menstrual symptom burden as a potential confounder of clinical outcomes [94]
• Multiple comparison correction: Bonferroni or false discovery rate adjustments for multi-phase analyses

Recent consensus recommendations emphasize harmonized analytical approaches to enable cross-study comparisons and future meta-analyses [92].

The evidence for menstrual cycle phase influences on clinical outcomes and adverse event profiles, while still emerging, justifies methodologically rigorous investigation of phase-dependent dosing strategies. Current findings suggest that hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle can modulate drug effects sufficiently to warrant consideration in clinical trial design and pharmacotherapy optimization.

Priority research directions include:

• Prospective pharmacokinetic studies examining phase-dependent variations in drug metabolism pathways
• Randomized controlled trials of phase-dependent dosing regimens for drugs with narrow therapeutic indices
• Development of consensus endpoints for phase-specific adverse event reporting
• Investigation of cycle phase effects in special populations (adolescents, perimenopausal women, and those with menstrual cycle irregularities)

As the field advances, standardized methodologies and nomenclature—as exemplified by recent consensus statements [92] [20] [93]—will be essential for generating comparable, generalizable evidence to guide phase-informed pharmacotherapy. The ultimate goal is to incorporate menstrual cycle phase as a routine consideration in precision medicine approaches for female patients, optimizing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse events through biologically-informed dosing strategies.

The integration of sex-specific considerations into drug development represents a critical frontier for therapeutic precision. Historically, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials, creating significant gaps in understanding how drugs affect females differently than males [96]. This oversight is particularly problematic given that sex differences in pharmacokinetics—encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion—are well-documented and clinically significant [96]. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now recommends that sponsors include a fair representation of both sexes in clinical trials and analyze data for sex effects alongside other variables such as age and race [97]. This guidance reflects growing recognition that the historical drug development paradigm has failed to adequately characterize medication effects in women, leading to situations where women experience differential therapeutic effects or adverse drug reactions.

A particularly nuanced layer within sex-specific pharmacology involves the impact of the menstrual cycle on drug disposition and effects. The physiological fluctuations of hormones such as 17β-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) throughout the menstrual cycle can systematically influence metabolic processes, fluid balance, and body composition—all factors that may modify drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [40]. Despite this biological plausibility, the specific implications of menstrual cycle phase on drug dosing remain poorly characterized, partly due to methodological inconsistencies in how menstrual cycles are defined and monitored in clinical research [19]. Achieving consensus on menstrual cycle phase definitions and nomenclature is therefore not merely an academic exercise but a necessary foundation for generating reliable, reproducible data to inform evidence-based dosing guidelines for premenopausal women.

Regulatory Evolution and Current Framework

The regulatory landscape for evaluating sex differences in drug development has evolved substantially. In 1993, the FDA published its initial guideline addressing concerns that the drug development process failed to provide adequate information about drug effects in women [97]. This was updated in January 2025 with critical changes that reflect a more nuanced understanding of female participation in clinical trials. The current FDA guidance lifts previous restrictions on participation by most women with childbearing potential in Phase 1 and early Phase 2 trials, instead encouraging their inclusion [97]. This shift acknowledges that early-phase trials can be safely conducted in women through protocol designs that include pregnancy monitoring and measures to prevent conception during exposure to investigational agents.

The updated guidance emphasizes several key considerations for clinical investigators and sponsors. First, it mandates that sex-related data be collected throughout the research and development process and analyzed for sex-specific effects [97]. Second, it highlights the importance of collecting pharmacokinetic data on demographic differences beginning in Phase 1 and 2 studies to inform the design of later trials [97]. Specifically, the guidance recommends investigating three pharmacokinetic issues when feasible: (1) the effect of stages of the menstrual cycle; (2) the effect of exogenous hormonal therapy including oral contraceptives; and (3) the effect of the investigational drug on the pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives [97]. These recommendations acknowledge that hormonal fluctuations—both endogenous and exogenous—can significantly modify drug exposure and response.

From an institutional review board (IRB) perspective, the guidance provides broader discretion to encourage participation of diverse individuals in early-phase trials [97]. The informed consent process must adequately communicate uncertainties, particularly when preclinical reproductive toxicology studies are incomplete. Participants should be informed about the lack of full characterization of the test article and potential effects on conception and fetal development, with consent documents updated as new pertinent information emerges from ongoing studies [97]. This ethical framework enables the responsible inclusion of women in clinical trials while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

Methodological Challenges in Menstrual Cycle Research

A significant barrier to advancing our understanding of menstrual cycle effects on drug disposition is the lack of methodological standardization in defining and verifying menstrual cycle phases. Current literature reveals substantial inconsistencies in terminology, phase definitions, and verification methods, which compromise the comparability and validity of research findings [19] [46] [40]. Many studies rely on assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases based solely on calendar counting of days from the onset of menses, an approach that has been critically described as "guessing" rather than measuring hormonal status [19]. This method is problematic because the presence of menses and a regular cycle length (21-35 days) does not guarantee a normal hormonal profile, as subtle menstrual disturbances such as anovulatory or luteal phase deficient cycles can go undetected without direct hormonal measurement [19].

The gold standard for menstrual cycle phase determination involves transvaginal ultrasound for visualizing ovarian changes and serial serum hormone testing for estradiol, progesterone, and luteinizing hormone (LH) [46]. However, these methods are often impractical in non-clinical research settings due to their invasiveness, cost, and logistical complexity. Consequently, researchers have explored alternative approaches using salivary and urinary hormone assays, which offer greater feasibility for field-based studies [46]. A scoping review of these methods found inconsistencies in validity and precision reporting, with variations in hormone value ranges and phase definitions across studies [46]. This methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for standardized protocols and reporting standards for menstrual cycle research.

Table 1: Comparison of Menstrual Cycle Phase Verification Methods

Method	Measured Parameters	Validity Considerations	Practical Limitations
Serum Hormone Testing	Direct measurement of E2, P4, LH concentrations	High validity when properly timed; considered gold standard	Invasive, requires venipuncture, laboratory access, costly
Urinary Hormone Assays	LH surge detection; steroid hormone metabolites	Good for detecting LH surge; variable for E2/P4	Reflects metabolites rather than active hormones; timing challenges
Salivary Hormone Assays	Unbound E2 and P4 fractions	Measures bioavailable hormone; correlation with serum levels uncertain	Affected by oral health, food, collection time; precision concerns
Calendar-Based Counting	Cycle day from menstruation onset	Poor for phase verification without hormonal correlation	Cannot detect anovulation or luteal phase defects
Basal Body Temperature	Shift in resting body temperature	Indirect confirmation of ovulation; does not pinpoint exact phase	Does not provide hormone quantification; multiple confounders

Terminology standardization represents another significant challenge. The term "eumenorrhea" should be reserved for cycles with confirmed ovulation and adequate hormonal profiles through advanced testing, whereas "naturally menstruating" is more appropriate when regular menstruation occurs without hormonal confirmation [19]. This distinction is crucial because up to 66% of exercising females may experience subtle menstrual disturbances that could significantly impact research outcomes if undetected [19]. Furthermore, the common practice of dichotomizing the menstrual cycle into broad follicular and luteal phases obscures important hormonal fluctuations that occur within these phases, particularly the peaks in estradiol during the late follicular phase and progesterone during the mid-luteal phase [40]. Optimal testing strategies should therefore incorporate repeated hormone assessments timed according to LH surge detection, with luteal phase testing occurring 7-9 days post-LH surge to ensure adequate progesterone levels and exclude anovulatory cycles [40].

Sex Differences in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Substantial evidence demonstrates that sex differences in drug disposition are clinically significant and rooted in physiological variations between males and females. These differences span all pharmacokinetic phases: absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion [96]. Understanding these differences is essential for interpreting sex-specific drug responses and designing appropriate dosing regimens.

Metabolic Differences

Phase I metabolism, primarily mediated by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, shows pronounced sex differences. For instance, CYP3A4—responsible for metabolizing approximately 50% of marketed drugs—demonstrates higher activity in women, leading to faster clearance of substrates such as cyclosporine, erythromycin, and cortisol [96]. Conversely, CYP1A2 activity is higher in men, resulting in faster clearance of antipsychotic drugs like olanzapine and clozapine [96]. This differential metabolism may explain why women often experience greater improvement in psychotic symptoms with these medications but also suffer more adverse effects such as weight gain and metabolic syndrome [96]. The activity of CYP2D6, which metabolizes more than 20% of prescribed drugs including codeine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, is higher in women among extensive metabolizers and increases further during pregnancy [96].

Phase II metabolism also demonstrates sex-specific patterns, with most phase II enzymes showing higher activity in men [96]. Glucuronidation, mediated by uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs), is particularly relevant for drugs such as oxazepam and many antiretroviral agents. Men demonstrate faster clearance of drugs eliminated primarily by glucuronidation, while women may experience higher incidence of adverse effects and potentially greater efficacy with antiretroviral drugs due to slower clearance [96]. These metabolic differences are further modified by hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, though this aspect remains inadequately studied.

Distribution and Elimination Differences

Body composition differences significantly impact drug distribution between sexes. Women typically have a higher percentage of body fat and lower body water content compared to men [96]. This results in a larger volume of distribution for lipophilic drugs such as benzodiazepines and opioids, potentially extending their half-lives in women due to accumulation in adipose tissue [96]. Conversely, the volume of distribution for water-soluble drugs is generally lower in women, leading to higher initial plasma concentrations [96].

Renal elimination also demonstrates sex differences, with men typically having higher renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rates [96]. Consequently, women show slower clearance of renally eliminated drugs such as digoxin, methotrexate, and gabapentin [96]. This may contribute to the higher mortality rate observed in women with heart failure treated with digoxin, highlighting the clinical importance of considering sex differences in dosing [96].

Table 2: Selected Examples of Drugs with Clinically Relevant Sex Differences

Drug	Therapeutic Class	Sex Difference	Clinical Implications
Zolpidem	Hypnotic	Slower clearance in women; higher serum concentrations	FDA recommended 50% lower dose for women; morning-after impairment risk
Olanzapine	Antipsychotic	Slower clearance in women; higher exposure	Better symptom control but more adverse effects (weight gain, metabolic syndrome)
Acetaminophen	Analgesic	Slower clearance in women	Potential for increased exposure; offset by oral contraceptives
Digoxin	Cardiac glycoside	Slower clearance in women; higher serum concentrations	Higher mortality in women with heart failure; suggested lower doses and monitoring
Vecuronium	Neuromuscular blocker	Greater sensitivity in women; lower volume of distribution	Shorter duration of effect; possible dosage reduction needed

Implications for Drug Development and Dosing Guidelines

The documented sex differences in pharmacokinetics and the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase have profound implications for drug development processes and dosing recommendations. Despite regulatory guidance encouraging the inclusion of women in clinical trials and sex-specific analysis, dosing recommendations rarely account for these differences [96]. Among the limited number of New Drug Applications (approximately 7%) that included sex analysis, about 40% demonstrated clinically significant pharmacokinetic differences between men and women, yet no differential dosing recommendations were made for these drugs [96].

The traditional approach of determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as the recommended Phase 2 dose, developed for cytotoxic chemotherapies, may be suboptimal for modern targeted therapies [98]. This approach often selects unnecessarily high dosages that produce additional toxicity without added benefit, particularly problematic given that sex differences in drug metabolism may place one sex at greater risk of adverse effects at standard doses. The FDA has initiated programs such as Project Optimus to encourage dosage optimization that maximizes efficacy while minimizing toxicity [98]. Model-informed drug development approaches, including exposure-response analyses and clinical utility indices, offer promising strategies for identifying optimized dosages that account for sex-specific differences [98].

Pregnancy represents a particularly understudied area in clinical pharmacology, with pregnant women historically excluded from clinical trials [99]. Physiological changes during pregnancy can significantly alter drug pharmacokinetics, potentially reducing exposure below therapeutic levels for some drugs (e.g., anti-epileptics) or increasing toxicity risks for others [99]. The case of cobicistat-boosted regimens illustrates this concern, where pharmacokinetic boosting was substantially reduced during pregnancy, leading to subtherapeutic drug concentrations and revised recommendations against using cobicistat-containing regimens during pregnancy [99]. This example highlights the critical need to include pregnant women in clinical trials and conduct thorough pharmacokinetic studies during pregnancy to ensure appropriate dosing.

Diagram: Integration of Sex and Menstrual Cycle Considerations into Drug Development. This workflow illustrates how sex-specific pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysis and menstrual cycle considerations can be incorporated throughout the drug development process to inform model-based approaches and ultimately lead to optimized, sex-informed dosing guidelines.

Recommended Methodologies and Research Toolkit

To advance our understanding of menstrual cycle effects on drug disposition and response, researchers should implement rigorous methodological standards for menstrual cycle characterization. The following recommendations provide a framework for high-quality research in this area:

Hormone Verification Methods

Direct hormonal measurement should be prioritized over calendar-based estimates whenever feasible. For laboratory-based studies, serum hormone testing remains the gold standard and should be timed according to LH surge detection for optimal phase verification [40]. Luteal phase testing should occur 7-9 days post-LH surge to ensure adequate progesterone levels and confirm ovulation [40]. When serum testing is impractical, salivary or urinary hormone assays may be used with appropriate validation and consistency in sampling protocols [46]. Researchers should report the validity (sensitivity, specificity) and precision (intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation) of these methods to enable critical evaluation of results [46].

Participant characterization should clearly distinguish between "eumenorrheic" cycles (confirmed ovulation and adequate hormonal profiles) and "naturally menstruating" cycles (regular menses without hormonal confirmation) [19]. Studies should explicitly report the criteria used for cycle phase determination, including specific hormone thresholds and timing relative to LH surge or mensis onset. Additionally, researchers should screen for and report menstrual disturbances, as these conditions may significantly impact study outcomes and are prevalent in certain populations, including athletes [19] [40].

Experimental Design Considerations

Timing of assessments should account for key hormonal fluctuations throughout the menstrual cycle. Rather than simply comparing follicular versus luteal phases, researchers should consider incorporating testing during hormonally distinct subphases: early follicular (low E2, low P4), late follicular (high E2, low P4), and mid-luteal (high E2, high P4) [40]. This approach captures the dynamic hormonal environment more accurately and may reveal phase-dependent effects that would be obscured in broader phase categorizations.

Statistical planning should account for within-subject variability across cycles and potential cycle irregularities. Repeated measures designs with sufficient sampling frequency throughout the cycle enhance the reliability of detecting menstrual cycle effects. Researchers should also consider potential effect modifiers such as body composition, exercise habits, stress, and nutritional status, which may interact with menstrual cycle phase to influence drug pharmacokinetics and response.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Menstrual Cycle Phase Verification

Reagent/Assay	Application	Technical Considerations	Field Adaptation Potential
Serum E2/P4/LH Immunoassays	Quantitative hormone measurement in serum	Gold standard; requires venipuncture and laboratory processing	Low; limited by need for clinical facilities and trained phlebotomists
Salivary E2/P4 Kits	Non-invasive hormone monitoring	Measures unbound fraction; affected by collection method and oral health	Moderate; suitable for field settings with proper training and standardization
Urinary LH Detection Kits	Identification of ovulation timing	High sensitivity for LH surge; qualitative results	High; simple collection, visual readout, suitable for home or field use
Menstrual Cycle Tracking Apps	Documentation of cycle length and symptoms	Provides longitudinal data; cannot verify hormonal status	High when combined with other measures; limited as standalone verification
Basal Body Temperature Kits	Detection of post-ovulatory temperature shift	Confirms ovulation occurrence; does not pinpoint exact phase	High; simple measurement but requires consistent daily protocol

Diagram: Experimental Protocol for Menstrual Cycle Phase Verification. This workflow outlines a comprehensive approach to menstrual cycle phase verification in research settings, incorporating multiple verification methods and timing assessments according to hormonally distinct phases.

The integration of sex-specific considerations and menstrual cycle phase into drug development represents both a scientific imperative and an opportunity for therapeutic optimization. Substantial evidence confirms that sex differences in pharmacokinetics are clinically significant, yet current dosing guidelines rarely account for these differences [96]. The methodological challenges in menstrual cycle research, including inconsistent terminology and verification methods, have hampered progress in understanding how hormonal fluctuations influence drug disposition and effects [19] [46] [40].

Future research should prioritize the development and validation of standardized methodologies for menstrual cycle characterization across diverse research settings. This includes establishing consensus definitions for cycle phases, validating practical hormone monitoring techniques for field-based studies, and determining threshold hormone values for phase determination [19] [40]. Additionally, model-informed drug development approaches should systematically incorporate sex and menstrual cycle phase as covariates in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models [98]. Regulatory agencies can encourage this progress by providing more specific guidance on methodological standards for evaluating menstrual cycle effects in clinical trials.

Ultimately, advancing our understanding of how sex and menstrual cycle phase influence drug response will enable more precise dosing recommendations that optimize therapeutic outcomes for all patients. This precision medicine approach requires collaboration among researchers, clinicians, regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical developers to transform current practice and ensure that sex-specific considerations are fundamentally integrated into drug development and therapeutic individualization.

The establishment of robust, internationally recognized standards represents a critical inflection point in any scientific field. For researchers and drug development professionals working in menstruation science, this moment has arrived. Historically, the field has been characterized by fragmented methodologies, inconsistent cycle phase definitions, and a lack of global product safety benchmarks. This guide synthesizes recent, pivotal international efforts to build consensus across two interconnected domains: standardized methodologies for menstrual cycle research and global safety and quality standards for menstrual products.

The urgency for this consensus is clear. In research, the widespread practice of using assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases, rather than direct measurement, has been identified as a critical threat to scientific validity, with some experts noting this approach "amounts to guessing" [19]. Concurrently, the absence of globally harmonized product standards has created significant barriers to ensuring safety, quality, and accessibility for the approximately 1.8 billion people who menstruate worldwide [100]. This review aggregates the latest recommendations and protocols to empower scientists and industry professionals with the tools needed to advance evidence-based, equitable, and safe practices in menstrual health.

International Standardization of Menstrual Products

The Global Standardization Initiative

For the first time, a comprehensive global framework for menstrual products is being developed. Spearheaded by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) under Technical Committee (TC) 338, this initiative aims to create harmonized requirements for product content, safety, and performance [101] [102]. The scope of TC 338 encompasses all manufactured menstrual products, including single-use pads and tampons, reusable cloth-based products, and menstrual cups [100] [102].

The primary objectives of this standardization effort are multifaceted. They seek to improve product safety and quality of life during menstruation, enhance global accessibility and availability, foster positive conversations, improve consumer information, and support the adoption of these standards in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [102]. The expected completion date for these standards is 2027 [100].

Rationale and Impact

The lack of harmonized global standards presents a significant market failure. Presently, the quality and types of menstrual products can differ dramatically between countries, creating potential health risks [100]. Associated health risks include Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS), infections, and allergic reactions. A preliminary study cited detected concentrations of 16 heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, lead, and cobalt, in tampons [100].

The new standards will directly address these issues by establishing requirements to reduce harmful chemicals and improve user safety [101]. This is particularly crucial for LMICs, where the absence of standards exacerbates problems of access and safety, often forcing women and girls to rely on unsafe, non-purpose-made materials [100]. As noted by the Swedish Institute for Standards (SIS), the lack of standards is "one of the biggest barriers to making modern menstrual products available to everyone — regardless of where in the world they live" [101].

Table 1: Key Drivers for Global Menstrual Product Standards

Driver Category	Specific Rationale	Expected Impact
Public Health	Lack of harmonized safety requirements; potential presence of harmful chemicals; risks of TSS and infections [100].	Reduced health risks; improved consumer safety; minimized exposure to toxins.
Market Equity	Significant quality variations between countries; barriers to trade and manufacturing [100] [102].	Level playing field for businesses; improved product consistency; expanded market access.
Global Access	1.8 billion people menstruate monthly; limited access to safe products in LMICs [100] [103].	Broader availability of safe, quality-assured products; reduced use of non-purpose-made materials.
Dignity & Equality	Stigma around menstruation; some women must stay home during menstruation due to lack of products [101].	Improved human dignity; reduced stigma; greater gender equality.

Consensus Recommendations for Menstrual Cycle Research

The Critique of Assumed and Estimated Phases

A significant consensus is emerging against the use of assumed or estimated menstrual cycle phases in research settings. A 2025 Current Opinion paper starkly criticized this practice, stating that assumptions and estimations "are not direct measurements and, as such, represent guesses" [19]. This approach, often justified as pragmatic for field-based research, lacks scientific rigor and fails to meet standards of validity and reliability [19].

The core of the issue lies in the inability of calendar-based counting alone to confirm a eumenorrheic (healthy) hormonal profile. As illustrated in the search results, the presence of menses and an average cycle length of 21-35 days does not guarantee a eumenorrheic hormonal profile [19]. Subtle menstrual disturbances, such as anovulatory or luteal phase deficient cycles, are often asymptomatic and can go undetected without direct hormone measurement, yet they present with meaningfully different hormonal profiles [19]. One study noted a high prevalence (up to 66%) of both subtle and severe menstrual disturbances in exercising females [19].

Recommended Methodological Standards

The consensus recommends direct measurement of key hormonal characteristics to accurately define menstrual cycle phases in research. This includes detecting the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge prior to ovulation via urine, and confirming sufficient luteal phase progesterone via blood or saliva sampling [19].

Terminology must be used with precision. The term 'naturally menstruating' should be applied when a cycle length between 21 and 35 days is established via calendar counting, but no advanced testing confirms the hormonal profile. In contrast, the term 'eumenorrhea' and specific phase names should be reserved for situations where menstrual function has been confirmed through advanced testing [19]. Furthermore, the menstrual cycle is fundamentally a within-person process, and repeated measures studies are the gold standard. Cross-sectional designs that treat cycle phase as a between-subject variable lack validity [29].

Table 2: Comparison of Menstrual Cycle Phase Determination Methods

Method	Description	Data Output	Strength	Limitation for Research
Calendar-Based Counting	Tracking menstruation dates and calculating cycle length [29].	Cycle length; menstruation and non-menstruation days.	Low cost; accessible.	Cannot detect anovulation or luteal phase defects; insufficient for phase classification [19].
Urine Hormone Monitoring (e.g., LH Strips)	At-home qualitative or semi-quantitative tests to detect the LH surge [29].	Prediction of ovulation; confirmation of luteal phase onset.	Practical for home use; confirms ovulation.	May not quantify full hormone profile; variable accuracy between brands.
Quantitative Hormone Monitors (e.g., Mira)	At-home devices that measure multiple urinary hormones (e.g., FSH, E1G, LH, PDG) [30].	Concentration levels of multiple reproductive hormones.	Provides quantitative, multi-hormone data; enables pattern tracking.	Cost; requires validation against serum and ultrasound gold standards [30].
Serum Hormone Sampling	Blood draws to quantify reproductive hormone concentrations [30].	Precise serum concentration of hormones (e.g., E2, P4).	High accuracy; clinical gold standard.	Invasive; impractical for daily tracking; single time points less valuable than patterns.
Transvaginal Ultrasonography	Serial ultrasound imaging to track follicular development and rupture [30].	Direct visualization of follicular growth; confirmation of ovulation day.	Gold standard for confirming ovulation.	Highly invasive; resource-intensive; limited to clinical settings.

Experimental Protocols for Advanced Cycle Monitoring

The Gold Standard Protocol for Validation

A protocol titled the "Quantum Menstrual Health Monitoring Study" exemplifies the emerging gold standard for validating quantitative menstrual cycle monitoring tools. This protocol is designed to correlate at-home urine hormone monitor data with both serum hormone levels and the ultrasound-confirmed day of ovulation [30].

Objective and Hypothesis: The primary objective is to characterize quantitative urine hormone patterns and validate them against serum measurements and the ultrasound day of ovulation in participants with regular cycles. This established reference will then be used for comparison to irregular cycles in subjects with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) and athletes. The hypothesis is that the quantitative urine hormone pattern will accurately correlate with serum levels and will predict (via LH) and confirm (via PdG) ovulation in both regular and irregular cycles [30].

Study Design and Groups: The study employs a prospective cohort design with longitudinal follow-up for three months. It includes three distinct groups:

• Group 1: Participants with consistent regular cycle lengths (24-38 days).
• Group 2: Participants with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) and irregular cycles.
• Group 3: Individuals participating in high levels of exercise with irregular cycles [30].

This multi-group design is crucial for assessing the monitoring tool's efficacy across different physiological conditions, particularly given that many existing tracking methods have not been adequately evaluated in populations with irregular cycles [8].

Core Methodologies and Measurements

The protocol integrates multiple data streams to achieve a comprehensive view of menstrual cycle physiology:

• Urine Hormone Monitoring: Participants use the Mira monitor to quantitatively measure Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH), estrone-3-glucuronide (E1G), luteinizing hormone (LH), and pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG) daily [30].
• Ultrasound Confirmation of Ovulation: Participants undergo serial ultrasounds at a community clinic to track follicular development and definitively identify the day of ovulation, which serves as the primary gold standard reference [30].
• Serum Hormone Correlation: Blood samples are collected to compare serum hormone levels with the quantitative data obtained from the urine hormone monitor [30].
• Ancillary Data: A customized application is used to collect data on other markers of menstrual health, such as bleeding patterns (using the validated Mansfield–Voda–Jorgensen Menstrual Bleeding Scale) and body temperature changes [30].

This multi-modal approach ensures that the at-home monitoring tool is rigorously validated against clinical standards, paving the way for its use in both research and remote clinical settings.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Menstrual Cycle Research

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Quantitative Urine Hormone Monitor (e.g., Mira)	At-home measurement of FSH, E1G, LH, and PdG to track hormone dynamics [30].	Provides quantitative data; requires validation against serum and ultrasound; enables pattern recognition.
LH Urine Test Strips	Qualitative detection of the LH surge to predict impending ovulation [29].	Cost-effective; widely available; suitable for large cohort screening but provides limited data.
Serum Hormone Assay Kits	Precise quantification of estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), LH, FSH in blood samples [30] [29].	Gold standard for hormone concentration; invasive; must consider assay accuracy and sensitivity.
Transvaginal Ultrasound System	Serial tracking of follicular growth and confirmation of ovulation day [30].	Gold standard for ovulation confirmation; resource-intensive; requires specialized training.
Validated Daily Symptom/Bl	Prospective tracking of bleeding patterns, symptoms, and behaviors [29].	Critical for within-person designs; avoids recall bias; should use validated scales (e.g., C-PASS for PMDD).
Temperature Tracking Device (e.g., Tempdrop)	Monitoring basal body temperature (BBT) shift to confirm ovulation post-hoc [8].	Less reliable for prediction; useful for confirmation; modern devices control for sleep artifacts.
Salivary Progesterone Test	Non-invasive confirmation of luteal phase rise in progesterone [19].	Less invasive than blood draws; correlation with serum levels must be established.

The field of menstrual science is undergoing a necessary and transformative period of standardization. The concurrent development of global product standards (ISO/TC 338) and rigorous methodological consensuses for research creates a powerful synergy. For researchers and drug development professionals, adhering to these emerging guidelines is no longer a matter of best practice but of scientific integrity and clinical relevance.

Moving forward, the adoption of direct measurement techniques over estimation, the precise use of terminology, and the implementation of validated, multi-modal protocols will be paramount. These steps will ensure that research yields valid, reliable, and comparable data, ultimately accelerating our understanding of menstrual biology and leading to safer, more effective products and interventions for the billions of people who menstruate worldwide.

Conclusion

Establishing a rigorous, consensus-driven approach to menstrual cycle phase definition is not a niche concern but a fundamental requirement for scientific validity and patient safety in women's health research. The reliance on assumed or estimated phases produces low-quality evidence with limited applicability, perpetuating a dangerous knowledge gap. Future directions must prioritize the widespread adoption of direct hormonal measurement, the development of non-invasive and accessible monitoring technologies, and the integration of standardized menstrual cycle parameters into all phases of drug development. By embracing these methodologies, the scientific community can generate reliable, reproducible data that accurately reflects female physiology, leading to safer, more effective, and personalized medical treatments for women.

References

• 1. A review of menopause nomenclature - Reproductive Health [https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-022-01336-7]
• 2. Using Hormone Data and Age to Pinpoint Cycle Day within ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/59/7/1348]
• 3. Menstrual Cycle Length and Patterns in a Global Cohort of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7381001/]
• 4. Physiology, Menstrual Cycle - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500020/]
• 5. Ultrasonographic Assessment of Uterine and Ovarian ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40655711/]
• 6. Machine learning-based menstrual phase identification ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44294-025-00078-8]
• 7. Hormonal milieu influences whole-brain structural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-025-02066-2]
• 8. Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10534579/]
• 9. Physiology, Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone - StatPearls [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558992/]
• 10. Physiology of GnRH and Gonadotrophin Secretion - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279070/]
• 11. Estrogen: Hormone, Function, Levels & Imbalances [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22353-estrogen]
• 12. Progesterone: Natural Function, Levels & Side Effects [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24562-progesterone]
• 13. Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH): What It Is & Function [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/24638-follicle-stimulating-hormone-fsh]
• 14. Physiology, Follicle Stimulating Hormone - StatPearls - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535442/]
• 15. - Wikipedia Luteinizing hormone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luteinizing_hormone]
• 16. The Normal Menstrual Cycle and the Control of Ovulation [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279054/]
• 17. Physiology, Progesterone - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558960/]
• 18. Metabolic control of luteinizing -responsive ovarian... hormone [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11732475/]
• 19. Why We Must Stop Assuming and Estimating Menstrual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12152053/]
• 20. UEFA consensus statement on menstrual cycle tracking in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12458775/]
• 21. Table: Normal Menstrual Parameters [https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/multimedia/table/normal-menstrual-parameters]
• 22. Menstrual cycle: What's normal, what's not [https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/womens-health/in-depth/menstrual-cycle/art-20047186]
• 23. OVARIAN HORMONES 101; HOW TO CONDUCT HIGH- ... [https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/ovarian-hormones-101-how-to-conduct-high-quality-sport-and-exercise-science-research-on-female-athletes]
• 24. Menstrual Cycle Changes Joint Laxity in Females ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9181714/]
• 25. History of Women in Clinical Trials [https://www.medidata.com/en/life-science-resources/medidata-blog/women-in-clinical-trials-history/]
• 26. EBM Tools for Practice: Gender Differences in Clinical Trials [https://www.lipid.org/lipid-spin/spring-2015/ebm-tools-practice-gender-differences-clinical-trials]
• 27. History of Women's Participation in Clinical Research [http://orwh.od.nih.gov/toolkit/recruitment/history]
• 28. Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5867082/]
• 29. How to study the menstrual cycle - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8363181/]
• 30. Establishing a Gold Standard for Quantitative Menstrual ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/59/9/1513]
• 31. Biological sex differences in pharmacokinetics and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41117965/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=0_pY9EZNDSGlq7i1cCw3mSoe9g5pvDl5bngcfu9r4Cj&fc=None&ff=20251023144900&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 32. The problem of medicating women like the men [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7032965/]
• 33. Miroshnikov A.B., Anisimova A.E. Quantitative assessment and... [https://intsport.ru/en/journal-issues/2025-1/miroshnikov2025e]
• 34. What is Menstrual : Cycle , Diagram, Reasons - Embibe Phases [https://www.embibe.com/exams/menstrual-cycle/]
• 35. Physiological changes during the menstrual cycle and their ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9533982/]
• 36. Effect of Hormonal Changes on Drug Metabolism in Women [https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/effect-of-hormonal-changes-on-drug-metabolism-in-women-6D98.php?article_id=26740]
• 37. Dynamic change of estrogen and progesterone ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92866-0]
• 38. Feasibility and acceptability of testing a menstrual-cycle ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865420300533]
• 39. Does luteal phase support in MOH-IUI treatment improve ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12636955/]
• 40. Menstrual Cycle Tracking in Sports Research [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9488/3/4/44]
• 41. Menstrual cycle effects on cognitive performance: A meta ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318576]
• 42. Standardization of Menstrual Cycle Data for the Analysis ... [https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/63858]
• 43. Challenges and methodology for testing young healthy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3989744/]
• 44. Why We Must Stop Assuming and Estimating Menstrual ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-025-02189-3]
• 45. Establishing a Gold Standard for Quantitative Menstrual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10533176/]
• 46. Complexities in salivary and urinary methodology for ... [https://gremjournal.com/journal/01-2025/complexities-in-salivary-and-urinary-methodology-for-ovulation-and-menstrual-cycle-hormone-detection-a-scoping-review/]
• 47. New approaches for developing biomarkers of hormonal ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24215-4]
• 48. The menstrual cycle as a vital sign: a comprehensive review [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2666571924000380]
• 49. Determining Menstrual Cycle Phase - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10714354/]
• 50. Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5712333/]
• 51. Physiology, Ovulation And Basal Body Temperature - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546686/]
• 52. The prognostic value of serum progesterone and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7520212/]
• 53. The prognostic value of serum progesterone and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937894700389]
• 54. Documenting Ovulation with Quantitative Basal ... [https://cemcor.ubc.ca/resources/documenting-ovulation-quantitative-basal-temperature-qbt/]
• 55. Understanding Estrogen Levels During Your Menstrual Cycle [https://helloclue.com/articles/cycle-a-z/estrogen-101]
• 56. Luteinizing Hormone: Levels, Function & Testing [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22255-luteinizing-hormone]
• 57. Sex differences in schizophrenia: symptomatology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12206716/]
• 58. Evidence-Based Recommendations for the ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-023-01460-6]
• 59. The problem of medicating women like the men [https://synapse.koreamed.org/articles/1141690]
• 60. Relationship of gender and menstrual status to symptoms ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178197001376]
• 61. A Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive KarXT ... [https://www.centerwatch.com/clinical-trials/listings/NCT05145413/a-study-to-assess-efficacy-and-safety-of-adjunctive-karxt-in-subjects-with-inadequately-controlled-symptoms-of-schizophrenia]
• 62. Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782425000204]
• 63. Successful Implementation of Menstrual Cycle Biomarkers in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9956032/]
• 64. Free-living competitive racewalkers and runners with ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1279534/full]
• 65. Hormonal balance, anovulatory cycles and luteal phase ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40232947/]
• 66. Historical Perspectives and Evolution of Menstrual ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2022.820029/full]
• 67. Menstrual cycle hormones and oral contraceptives [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10979803/]
• 68. Menstruation - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/menstruation]
• 69. Key considerations to reduce or address respondent ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33826-4]
• 70. Realignment and multiple imputation of longitudinal data [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4059763/]
• 71. Monitoring Adherence Rate to Growth Hormone Therapy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7846437/]
• 72. Measurement of changes to the menstrual cycle [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306491]
• 73. Tracking of menstrual cycles and prediction of the fertile ... [https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-022-00993-4]
• 74. Menstrual Cycle Tracking Applications and the Potential for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8162175/]
• 75. Menstrual Cycle Management and Period Tracker App Use ... [https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e53146/]
• 76. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Comorbidity [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3800641/]
• 77. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Risk of Premenstrual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12221545/]
• 78. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Risk of Premenstrual ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40605960/]
• 79. Methodology, Design, and Analytic Techniques to Address ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2645650/]
• 80. Statistical methods for constructing disease comorbidity ... [https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-018-0101-4]
• 81. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is associated with the longer ... [https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-021-01403-4]
• 82. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Affective Symptoms, and ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-021-01244-w]
• 83. Are PMDD and PCOS linked? - Belle Health [https://bellehealth.co/pmdd-and-pcos/]
• 84. The Development of a Valid and Reliable Questionnaire to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12619082/]
• 85. Experiences of users of period tracking apps [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648323006983]
• 86. Accuracy of Calendar-Based Methods for Assigning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3658377/]
• 87. Real-world menstrual cycle characteristics of more than ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0152-7]
• 88. Validation of urinary reproductive hormone measurements ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36539-w]
• 89. Machine learning model for menstrual cycle phase ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525000551]
• 90. Impact of Menstrual cycle-based Periodized training on ... - Trials [https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-024-07921-4]
• 91. Menstrual Cycle and Athletic Status Interact to Influence ... [https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-025-00924-8]
• 92. Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39864646/]
• 93. Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of ... [https://pure.johnshopkins.edu/en/publications/consensus-recommendations-for-measuring-the-impact-of-contracepti]
• 94. The impact of menstrual cycle phase and symptoms on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12500648/]
• 95. The effect of menstrual cycle phase changes on error ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40059458/]
• 96. Gender Differences in Pharmacokinetics [https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/gender-differences-in-pharmacokinetics]
• 97. Evaluation of Sex Differences in Clinical Investigations [https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/evaluation-sex-differences-clinical-investigations]
• 98. FDA-AACR Strategies for Optimizing Dosages for Oncology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12536354/]
• 99. Pharmacokinetics and dosing [https://www.who.int/tools/antiretrovirals-in-pregnancy-research-toolkit/pharmacokinetics-and-dosing]
• 100. Setting global product standards for menstrual health [https://shfund.org/media/setting-global-product-standards-menstrual-health-work-starts-now]
• 101. World's First Global Standard for Menstrual Products in the ... [https://www.miun.se/en/Research/research-centers/fscn-research-centre/News/2025-5/worlds-first-global-standard-for-menstrual-products-in-the-making/]
• 102. Standards for Health: International Committee Guides ... [https://www.ansi.org/standards-news/all-news/5-28-25-international-committee-guides-global-standards-for-menstrual-products]
• 103. Global report reveals major gaps in menstrual health and ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2024-global-report-reveals-major-gaps-in-menstrual-health-and-hygiene-in-schools]