Validating DLMO Against Core Body Temperature: Protocols, Challenges, and Clinical Applications in Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive resource for researchers and drug development professionals on validating Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) protocols against core body temperature (CBT), the classic circadian phase marker. It covers the foundational biology of these rhythms, details rigorous methodological protocols for simultaneous assessment, addresses common troubleshooting and optimization challenges in data collection and analysis, and presents a framework for the statistical validation and comparative analysis of these biomarkers. The synthesis aims to equip scientists with the knowledge to robustly measure circadian phase, thereby enhancing research in chronobiology, sleep disorders, and circadian-informed drug development.

Circadian Biomarkers Fundamentals: Understanding DLMO and Core Body Temperature Rhythms

The Two-Process Model (2pm) of sleep regulation serves as a fundamental conceptual framework in sleep science, proposing that sleep-wake dynamics are governed by the interaction between two primary biological processes [1]. First formally described by Borbély in 1982 and subsequently refined with Daan and Beersma in 1984, this model has demonstrated remarkable longevity in its relevance to sleep research [1] [2]. The model posits that sleep propensity results from the combined action of a homeostatic process (Process S), which tracks sleep-wake history, and a circadian process (Process C), which provides approximately 24-hour rhythmicity independent of sleep and wake [1] [2]. This powerful conceptual framework has not only stimulated extensive fundamental research but has also provided quantitative predictive power through its mathematical formulations [2].

In the context of validating dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) protocols against core body temperature (CBT) research, the Two-Process Model provides essential physiological context. Both DLMO and CBT minimum (CBTmin) serve as key circadian phase markers that reflect the timing of the endogenous circadian pacemaker [3] [4]. Understanding how these markers relate to the processes outlined in the model is crucial for interpreting their respective strengths and limitations in both research and clinical applications. This comparison guide will objectively evaluate the Two-Process Model's performance against alternative conceptual frameworks while providing detailed experimental data relevant to researchers and drug development professionals focused on circadian rhythm assessment.

Core Components of the Two-Process Model

Process S: The Homeostatic Component

Process S represents the sleep-wake dependent homeostatic component of sleep regulation. This process conceptually reflects a "sleep debt" that accumulates during wakefulness and dissipates during sleep [1] [2]. The neurophysiological correlate of Process S is often measured through slow-wave activity (SWA) in the non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep electroencephalogram (EEG), which shows a characteristic exponential decline during sleep and enhancement after sleep deprivation [1].

Key characteristics of Process S include:

• Wake-dependent increase: Sleep pressure accumulates as a function of time spent awake
• Sleep-dependent decrease: Sleep pressure dissipates during sleep, particularly during NREM sleep
• Exponential dynamics: The decline of SWA during sleep follows an exponential time course
• Recovery response: After sleep deprivation, SWA shows enhanced levels during recovery sleep

The original mathematical formulation models Process S as a relaxation oscillator with different time constants during sleep and wake states [2]. During wakefulness, Process S increases toward an upper asymptote, while during sleep, it decreases toward a lower asymptote [5].

Process C: The Circadian Component

Process C represents the endogenous circadian rhythm of sleep propensity that is generated by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) and persists independently of sleep and wake states [1]. In the original model formulation, Process C exerts its influence by modulating thresholds for sleep initiation and termination [2]. Rather than directly causing sleep, it "gates" the expression of sleep propensity by determining when sleep can occur based on circadian phase [1].

The circadian process demonstrates:

• Approximately 24-hour periodicity: Maintains a consistent rhythm even in the absence of time cues
• Light entrainment: Synchronized to the 24-hour day primarily through light exposure
• Multiple output rhythms: Regulates various physiological parameters including melatonin secretion and core body temperature
• Phase-dependent sensitivity: Exhibits varying responsiveness to light across the circadian cycle

In the context of circadian biomarker validation, both DLMO and CBTmin are considered robust markers of Process C timing, with DLMO typically occurring 2-3 hours before habitual sleep onset in healthy individuals [3] [4].

Interaction Between Processes S and C

The interaction between Processes S and C creates the characteristic pattern of consolidated wakefulness during the day and consolidated sleep at night in healthy adults. The original model proposed a linear interaction where sleep onset occurs when Process S reaches an upper threshold modulated by Process C, while wake onset occurs when Process S reaches a lower threshold similarly modulated by the circadian process [2]. This dual-threshold mechanism explains how sleep duration and timing are regulated by the combined action of both processes [2].

Table 1: Core Components of the Two-Process Model

Component	Function	Neurobiological Correlates	Primary Measurement Methods
Process S (Homeostatic)	Tracks sleep-wake history and sleep debt	Slow-wave activity (SWA) in NREM sleep	EEG power density (0.75-4.5 Hz), sleep latency tests
Process C (Circadian)	Provides 24-hour rhythmic timing	Suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) activity	DLMO, CBTmin, cortisol rhythm, forced desynchrony protocols
Threshold Interaction	Determines sleep-wake transitions	Mutual inhibition between sleep-active and wake-active neuronal populations	Sleep timing, duration, and consolidation metrics

Experimental Validation and Methodologies

Key Experimental Protocols

Research validating the Two-Process Model has employed several sophisticated experimental protocols designed to separate circadian and homeostatic influences:

Sleep Deprivation and Recovery Protocols: These experiments demonstrate the homeostatic aspect of sleep regulation by measuring the increase in sleep pressure during extended wakefulness and its dissipation during recovery sleep [1]. Animal experiments showed that when recovery sleep was scheduled during the normal activity period, a two-stage recovery pattern emerged, demonstrating the conflict between sleep-wake-dependent and circadian influences [1].

Forced Desynchrony Protocols: This method separates the endogenous circadian component from the evoked effects of sleep and wake by scheduling subjects to sleep-wake cycles that are outside the range of entrainment of the circadian pacemaker (e.g., 20-hour or 28-hour days) [6]. This protocol has been particularly valuable in characterizing the circadian variation of sleep propensity and performance measures.

Constant Routine Protocols: By maintaining participants in a constant state of wakefulness under minimally varying environmental conditions (dim light, semi-recumbent posture, evenly distributed isocaloric snacks), this protocol unmask the endogenous circadian rhythm without the confounding effects of sleep-wake behavior, light exposure, postural changes, and nutrient intake.

Ultra-Short Sleep-Wake Schedules: Implementing very short sleep-wake cycles (e.g., 10-20 minutes awake followed by 5-10 minutes sleep opportunity) throughout the 24-hour period allows researchers to measure sleep propensity at different circadian phases [6].

Circadian Phase Assessment Methods

Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO): DLMO is considered the gold standard circadian phase marker, representing the time in the evening when melatonin secretion begins under dim light conditions (<10-15 lux) [3] [4]. The standard DLMO assessment protocol involves collecting salivary or plasma samples every 30-60 minutes under dim light conditions, typically starting 5-6 hours before habitual bedtime and continuing until at least 1 hour after habitual sleep onset [4]. The threshold for DLMO is commonly defined as the time when melatonin concentration exceeds 3 pg/mL for plasma or 4 pg/mL for saliva, or when it reaches 25% of the peak amplitude [3].

Core Body Temperature Minimum (CBTmin): CBTmin represents the nadir of the circadian body temperature rhythm, which typically occurs about 2 hours before habitual wake time [3]. Measurement requires continuous rectal temperature monitoring with a thermistor inserted 10 cm into the rectum, connected to a portable data logger [3]. CBTmin is typically identified by visual inspection of the data or by fitting a cosine curve to the temperature rhythm [3].

Table 2: Comparison of Circadian Phase Assessment Methods

Parameter	DLMO	CBTmin
Biological Basis	Onset of melatonin secretion from pineal gland	Nadir of core body temperature rhythm
Typical Timing	2-3 hours before habitual sleep onset [3]	~2 hours before habitual wake time [3]
Measurement Method	Salivary or plasma melatonin sampling every 30-60 min under dim light	Continuous rectal temperature monitoring
Phase Relationship	Evening marker, precedes sleep onset	Morning marker, precedes wake time
Advantages	Gold standard, minimal invasiveness, high amplitude rhythm	Continuous measurement, well-established rhythm
Disadvantages	Costly assays, requires strict dim light conditions	Invasive, affected by activity, posture, and sleep

Mathematical Formulations and Modeling Approaches

Original Two-Process Model Equations

The original Two-Process Model can be represented mathematically using eight key parameters that describe the dynamics of Process S and the modulation by Process C [2]. The homeostatic Process S is modeled as a function with different time constants during sleep (χs) and wake (χw), along with upper (μw) and lower (μs) asymptotes [2]. The circadian Process C is typically represented as a sinusoidal function with amplitude (a) and period (Tc) that modulates the thresholds for sleep-wake transitions [2].

The mathematical formulation allows the model to simulate various sleep-wake phenomena, including:

• Sleep duration after sleep deprivation
• Internal desynchrony in time isolation experiments
• Sleep fragmentation during continuous bed rest
• Transition between monophasic and polyphasic sleep patterns [2]

Phillips-Robinson (PR) Neuronal Model

The Phillips-Robinson (PR) model represents a more physiologically grounded extension of the original Two-Process Model, incorporating mutual inhibition between wake-promoting monoaminergic (MA) neurons and sleep-promoting ventrolateral preoptic (VLPO) neurons [5]. This model explains sleep-wake switching through the interplay of these neuronal populations, with homeostatic and circadian processes providing modulating inputs [5].

A key advancement of the PR model is its ability to provide a physiological interpretation of the thresholds in the original Two-Process Model. Research has demonstrated that parameters in the PR model can be explicitly mapped to parameters in the original model, with the threshold difference (H - L) in the Two-Process Model corresponding to the amount by which MA neurons inhibit VLPO firing during wakefulness [5].

Circadian Phase Prediction Models

Mathematical models have been developed to predict circadian phase from non-invasive ambulatory signals, with potential applications for clinical screening and diagnosis of circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders [4]. These include:

Dynamic Models: Based on the Jewett-Kronauer model of the human circadian pacemaker, these models use light exposure data to predict circadian phase through mathematical simulation of the circadian system's response to light [4]. In validation studies with Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD) patients, the dynamic model predicted DLMO with a root mean square error of 68 minutes, accurately predicting DLMO within ±1 hour in 58% of participants and ±2 hours in 95% [4].

Statistical Models: Using multiple linear regression of light exposure during phase delay and advance portions of the phase response curve, along with sleep timing and demographic variables, these models have demonstrated comparable performance to dynamic models [4]. In DSWPD patients, a statistical model predicted DLMO with root mean square error of 57 minutes, accurately predicting DLMO within ±1 hour in 75% of participants and ±2 hours in 96% [4].

Diagram 1: Two-Process Model Structure and Circadian Biomarkers. This diagram illustrates the interaction between Process S (homeostatic sleep pressure) and Process C (circadian pacemaker), showing how circadian biomarkers like DLMO and CBTmin relate to the core model components.

Comparative Analysis with Alternative Models

Mutual Inhibition Models

The mutual inhibition model of sleep-wake regulation proposed by Saper, Scammell, and Lu offers a more neurobiologically detailed alternative to the original Two-Process Model [2]. This model conceptualizes sleep-wake control as the result of reciprocal inhibition between wake-active populations (monoaminergic neurons, orexin neurons) and sleep-active populations (VLPO neurons) [5]. Rather than using abstract thresholds, the mutual inhibition model implements switching between states through the dynamic interplay of these neuronal populations, with homeostatic and circadian processes providing modulating inputs [5].

Research has demonstrated fundamental similarities between the Two-Process Model and mutual inhibition models [5]. Mathematical analysis shows that parameters in the Phillips-Robinson mutual inhibition model can be explicitly mapped to parameters in the original Two-Process Model, providing a physiological interpretation of the previously abstract thresholds [5]. The threshold difference (H - L) in the Two-Process Model corresponds physiologically to the amount by which monoaminergic neurons inhibit VLPO firing during wakefulness [5].

Alternative Interaction Perspectives

Recent analyses have proposed alternative perspectives on the interaction between homeostatic and circadian processes [6]. Rather than the originally proposed linear interaction where Process C gates Process S through thresholds, some researchers have suggested that a multiplicative interaction between two more equivalent processes might better explain certain aspects of sleep propensity, including:

• Afternoon Napping Zone (ANZ): A period of increased sleep propensity in the early afternoon
• Wake Maintenance Zone (WMZ): A period of reduced sleep propensity in the hours before habitual bedtime
• Ultradian fluctuations: Faster-than-circadian oscillations in sleep propensity
• Integration of REM sleep: The original model had difficulty incorporating REM sleep regulation

Evidence for these zones comes from multiple experimental approaches, including ultra-short sleep-wake schedules, multiple sleep latency tests, constant routine protocols, and field studies on napping behavior and performance variations [6].

Table 3: Comparison of Sleep Regulation Models

Feature	Original Two-Process Model	Mutual Inhibition Models	Alternative Interaction Perspective
Core Mechanism	Threshold-based gating of homeostatic process by circadian process	Mutual inhibition between sleep-active and wake-active neuronal populations	Multiplicative interaction between more equivalent processes
Physiological Interpretation	Abstract thresholds with limited physiological correlates	Specific neuronal populations with identified neurotransmitters	Not yet fully specified
Explanatory Scope	Sleep timing, duration, and response to sleep deprivation	Sleep-wake switching, neuronal dynamics, sleep fragmentation	Afternoon napping zone, wake maintenance zone, ultradian rhythms
REM Sleep Integration	Problematic, initially considered as separate process [6]	Can be incorporated through additional neuronal circuits	Potentially better integration of sleep states
Mathematical Formulation	Circle maps, threshold crossings	Differential equations of neuronal firing	Proposed as multiplicative rather than additive
Clinical Applications	Sleep deprivation responses, circadian rhythm disorders	Sleep fragmentation, pharmacological interventions	Explanation of daytime sleepiness patterns

Research Reagent Solutions and Methodological Tools

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for Circadian and Sleep Studies

Research Tool	Application	Function	Example Methodology
Polysomnography (PSG) Systems	Sleep staging and architecture analysis	Measures EEG, EOG, EMG, and other physiological signals during sleep	Standard overnight recording with electrode placement according to 10-20 system
Actigraphy Devices	Ambulatory sleep-wake monitoring	Estimates sleep-wake patterns through movement detection	Worn on wrist for 7-14 days, 60-second epochs, with light exposure recording
Salivary Melatonin Collection Kits	DLMO assessment	Collects saliva samples for melatonin radioimmunoassay (RIA)	Sampling every 30-60 minutes under dim light (<10 lux), typically 5-6 hours before to 1 hour after habitual bedtime
Core Body Temperature Sensors	CBTmin determination	Continuous rectal temperature monitoring	Flexible rectal thermistor inserted 10 cm, connected to portable data logger [3]
Radioimmunoassay (RIA) Kits	Melatonin quantification	Measures melatonin concentration in saliva or plasma	Uses 10 pg/mL threshold for plasma or 4 pg/mL for saliva to determine DLMO [3]
Forced Desynchrony Protocols	Separating circadian and homeostatic effects	Assesses endogenous circadian rhythms independent of behavior	20-hour or 28-hour sleep-wake cycles in time isolation facilities
Constant Routine Protocols	Unmasking endogenous circadian rhythms	Controls for environmental and behavioral confounds	24-40 hours of wakefulness in constant conditions with frequent physiological measurements

Applications in Clinical Research and Drug Development

Circadian Rhythm Sleep-Wake Disorders

The Two-Process Model provides a valuable framework for understanding and treating circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, particularly Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD) [4]. Research has shown that circadian misalignment—disruption of the normal phase relationship between sleep-wake cycles and the endogenous circadian pacemaker—correlates with depression severity in mood disorders [3]. In DSWPD patients, the phase angle between DLMO and midsleep shows abnormal patterns, with shorter intervals indicating circadian misalignment [3] [4].

Circadian phase prediction models have demonstrated potential for improving DSWPD diagnosis and treatment. When used to classify DSWPD patients as having circadian vs. non-circadian forms of the disorder, statistical models achieved 74% sensitivity and 63% specificity, while dynamic models showed 64% sensitivity and 66% specificity [4]. This suggests that mathematical modeling of circadian phase from light exposure data could supplement or potentially replace more costly DLMO measurements in clinical practice.

Neurodegenerative Disorders and Aging

Extensions of the Two-Process Model that incorporate the effects of light on circadian entrainment provide new interpretations of sleep phenotypes in neurodegenerative disorders and aging [2]. These extended models can simulate how reduced light sensitivity or changes in retinal light exposure (common in aging and neurodegenerative conditions) affect both circadian timing and sleep consolidation. The models provide quantitative predictions for how timed light exposure interventions might support sleep and circadian alignment in these populations [2].

Pharmacological Applications

From a drug development perspective, the Two-Process Model offers a framework for understanding how pharmacological agents might target specific components of sleep regulation:

• Homeostatic process targets: Compounds that enhance sleep pressure dissipation or reduce its accumulation
• Circadian process targets: Chronobiotic agents that phase-shift the circadian pacemaker
• Threshold-modifying targets: Substances that affect the sensitivity to sleep pressure

The relationship between the original model and mutual inhibition models provides additional insight into how neuropharmacological agents affecting specific neurotransmitter systems (orexin, GABA, monoamines) might influence sleep-wake regulation through their actions on the flip-flop switch between sleep and wake states [5] [2].

Diagram 2: Circadian Phase Assessment Workflow. This diagram outlines the methodologies for assessing circadian phase through DLMO, CBTmin, and mathematical prediction models, along with their research and clinical applications.

The Two-Process Model of sleep regulation continues to provide a valuable framework for interpreting the relationship between circadian phase markers and sleep-wake patterns. In the context of validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research, the model offers several important insights:

First, the model explains why different circadian phase markers (DLMO, CBTmin) show consistent phase relationships with sleep-wake patterns in healthy individuals, while demonstrating substantial variability in clinical populations [3] [4]. This variability reflects individual differences in the phase relationship between the circadian pacemaker and sleep-wake thresholds.

Second, the mathematical formulations of the Two-Process Model and its extensions provide tools for predicting circadian phase from non-invasive measurements, potentially reducing the need for extensive biochemical sampling in both research and clinical practice [4]. The demonstrated accuracy of these models in predicting DLMO suggests they could serve as valuable screening tools.

Finally, ongoing refinements to the original model continue to enhance its explanatory power and clinical relevance. The integration of the model with neuronal circuitry, the development of more sophisticated light entrainment components, and the exploration of alternative interaction dynamics between processes all contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of sleep-wake regulation that supports both basic research and applied clinical applications [6] [2].

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus serves as the master circadian pacemaker in mammals, synchronizing behavioral and physiological rhythms with the environmental light-dark cycle via direct retinal input [7]. This central clock generates endogenous, approximately 24-hour oscillations through transcription-translation feedback loops involving core clock genes such as CLOCK, BMAL1, PERIOD (PER), and CRYPTOCHROME (CRY) [8] [9]. The SCN communicates timing information to peripheral tissues through neural, hormonal, and behavioral pathways, with the pineal gland's secretion of melatonin representing a crucial hormonal output of the circadian system [10] [9].

Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) has emerged as the gold standard biomarker for assessing the phase of the human circadian system [9] [11]. As the most reliable proxy for SCN timing, DLMO reflects the clock-time when melatonin concentrations begin to rise under dim light conditions, typically occurring 2-3 hours before habitual sleep time [9]. This review examines the physiological basis for DLMO's preeminence, compares it critically with other circadian phase markers like core body temperature (CBT), and details standardized protocols for its measurement in research and clinical contexts.

The SCN-Pineal Axis: Anatomical and Molecular Pathways

Neural Connectivity from SCN to Melatonin Secretion

The SCN regulates melatonin synthesis through a multisynaptic pathway that translates central timing information into hormonal secretion. This pathway involves neural projections from the SCN to the paraventricular nucleus (PVN), which in turn projects to sympathetic neurons in the spinal cord that ultimately innervate the pineal gland [10]. Norepinephrine release in the pineal gland during the dark period stimulates the synthesis of melatonin through upregulation of key enzymes, particularly arylalkylamine N-acetyltransferase (AANAT) [10].

Molecular Feedback Loop: Melatonin's Action on SCN

Melatonin not only serves as an output of the SCN but also provides feedback to the central pacemaker through MT1 and MT2 receptors expressed in the SCN [7]. Recent research has identified a molecular pathway by which melatonin promotes sleep by activating BK channels (Slo1) via MT1 receptors in the SCN [7]. This MT1-Slo1 signaling axis modulates action potential properties in SCN neurons, reducing neuronal excitability and promoting sleep maintenance during the rest phase [7]. The bidirectional relationship between the SCN and melatonin creates a tightly regulated feedback system that stabilizes circadian timing.

Methodological Comparison: DLMO Versus Core Body Temperature

Technical and Performance Characteristics

While DLMO is widely regarded as the gold standard for circadian phase assessment, core body temperature (CBT) has historically served as an alternative circadian marker. The table below compares their key characteristics based on current research evidence.

Table 1: Comparison of Circadian Phase Assessment Methods

Parameter	DLMO	Core Body Temperature (CBT)
Physiological Basis	Melatonin secretion from pineal gland	Endogenous rhythm in heat production/dissipation
Relationship to SCN	Direct hormonal output	Indirect output, strongly masked by sleep/wake behaviors
Phase Precision	Standard deviation of 14-21 minutes [9]	Less precise, ~40 minutes standard deviation [9]
Measurement Burden	Requires serial sampling in dim light	Continuous monitoring with rectal probe or ingestible pill
Masking Effects	Minimal with proper dim light conditions	Strongly masked by posture, sleep, food intake, activity
Protocol Duration	4-6 hours sampling (typically 5 hours before to 1 hour after bedtime) [9]	24+ hours continuous monitoring
Primary Applications	Circadian rhythm sleep disorders, shift work research, chronotherapy	Basic research, sleep studies

Phase Relationship and Predictive Value

DLMO demonstrates consistent phase relationships with sleep-wake timing and has shown significant predictive value for sleep continuity. A 2025 study involving 128 individuals with insomnia disorder found that the phase angle between DLMO and sleep onset time was associated with sleep latency, sleep duration, and sleep efficiency [12]. Participants with a longer phase angle between DLMO and sleep onset time (>3 hours) experienced significantly longer sleep latencies and shorter sleep durations than those with a shorter phase angle (<2 hours) [12]. This evidence underscores DLMO's clinical relevance for understanding sleep pathophysiology.

Experimental Protocols for DLMO Assessment

Standardized DLMO Measurement Workflow

The accurate determination of DLMO requires careful control of environmental conditions and systematic sampling procedures. The following workflow represents the current consensus protocol for reliable DLMO assessment in research settings.

Analytical Methods for DLMO Determination

Several analytical approaches exist for determining DLMO from melatonin profiles, each with distinct advantages and limitations:

• Fixed Threshold Method: DLMO is defined as the time when interpolated melatonin concentrations reach a predetermined threshold (typically 10 pg/mL in serum or 3-4 pg/mL in saliva) [9]. This method is straightforward but may be problematic for low melatonin producers.

• Variable Threshold Method: DLMO is calculated as the time when melatonin levels exceed two standard deviations above the mean of three or more baseline values [9]. This approach adapts to individual differences in melatonin production but requires sufficient baseline samples.

• Hockey-Stick Algorithm: An objective, automated method that estimates the point of change from baseline to rise in melatonin levels [9]. When compared with expert visual assessments, this algorithm showed better agreement than either fixed or dynamic threshold methods.

Research Reagent Solutions for Circadian Biology

Table 2: Essential Research Materials for DLMO and Circadian Rhythm Studies

Reagent/Kit	Application	Technical Specifications	Research Context
Salivary Melatonin Assay	DLMO phase determination	Sensitivity: <1 pg/mL for LC-MS/MS; Specificity: High with LC-MS/MS [9]	Preferred for non-invasive repeated sampling; critical for pediatric and field studies
Plasma Melatonin RIA	High-precision melatonin quantification	Detection limit: ~1 pg/mL; Format: Radioimmunoassay [12]	Used in controlled laboratory settings; considered reference standard
Actigraphy System	Objective sleep-wake monitoring	Device: Worn on nondominant wrist; Metrics: Sleep latency, WASO, efficiency [12]	Provides complementary objective sleep data to correlate with DLMO phase
Core Body Temperature Probe	CBT rhythm assessment	Type: Rectal or ingestible telemetry pill; Sampling: Continuous 24+ hours [11]	Used as comparator to DLMO in validation studies; requires controlled conditions
Sleep Diary	Subjective sleep timing	Format: Consensus Sleep Diary (17 items); Duration: Typically 7-14 days [8] [12]	Essential for determining habitual sleep schedule for sampling timing
RNA Extraction Kit (Saliva)	Circadian gene expression	Preservative: RNAprotect; Optimal ratio: 1:1 saliva:preservative [11]	Enables molecular circadian profiling from same sample as melatonin

Advances in Circadian Phase Assessment

Emerging Biomarkers and Methodological Innovations

While DLMO remains the gold standard, recent research explores complementary approaches to circadian phase assessment:

• Blood-Based Transcriptomic Biomarkers: Multivariate molecular approaches using machine learning algorithms (Partial Least Squares Regression, ZeitZeiger, Elastic Net) show promise for estimating circadian phase from single blood samples [13]. However, performance depends heavily on training set size and experimental conditions, with current biomarkers struggling to maintain accuracy under real-world scenarios like shift work [13].

• Salivary Circadian Gene Expression: Simultaneous measurement of core clock genes (ARNTL1, PER2, NR1D1) in saliva alongside melatonin profiles enables multidimensional circadian assessment [11]. Significant correlations have been observed between the acrophases of ARNTL1 gene expression and cortisol, with both correlating with individual bedtime [11].

• Dynamic Lighting Protocols: Well-designed lighting interventions can systematically modulate DLMO phase. Recent field experiments demonstrate that Forward Lighting Patterns (increasing circadian-effective light throughout the day) can advance DLMO by approximately 48 minutes and increase melatonin secretion by approximately 1.5-fold compared to static lighting [14].

Validation Against Core Body Temperature

The superior precision of DLMO compared to CBT is well-established in circadian literature. While CBT shows a robust endogenous rhythm, it is strongly influenced by masking factors including sleep, posture, food intake, and activity [11]. Methodological studies indicate that melatonin allows for SCN phase determination with a standard deviation of 14-21 minutes, whereas cortisol-based methods yield less precise estimates of about 40 minutes [9]. This precision advantage, combined with the direct physiological relationship between SCN activity and pineal melatonin secretion, solidifies DLMO's position as the preferred metric for circadian phase assessment in both research and clinical applications.

Core body temperature (CBT) represents a fundamental physiological rhythm under precise circadian control, serving as a critical output and input of the body's central timing system. The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in the hypothalamus functions as the master circadian pacemaker, tightly regulating endogenous CBT rhythms with highest temperature in the late day or early evening and lowest temperature in the late night or early morning [15]. This rhythm is not merely an output but also plays an active role in organizing peripheral circadian rhythms throughout the body, creating a hierarchical temporal structure essential for optimal health [15] [16].

The thermoregulatory system maintains core temperature within a narrow range of 36.5°C to 38.5°C (97.7°F to 101.3°F) despite environmental fluctuations [17]. This stability is achieved through complex mechanisms involving peripheral and central thermoreceptors that relay information to the preoptic area of the hypothalamus, which then activates appropriate efferent responses including vasomotion, sweating, and shivering [18]. The circadian modulation of CBT interacts with these thermoregulatory processes, creating a dynamic system that reflects both time-of-day signals and ongoing physiological demands.

Within circadian research, establishing accurate DLMO (Dim Light Melatonin Onset) protocols requires careful validation against gold-standard circadian markers. CBT measurements, particularly when obtained under controlled constant routine conditions, provide such a reference point for evaluating the timing and amplitude of circadian rhythms [15] [19]. Recent methodological advances now enable more precise separation of endogenous circadian components from masking effects, enhancing the utility of CBT in circadian phenotyping and DLMO validation studies [19].

Experimental Approaches for Circadian CBT Assessment

Constant Routine Protocol for Endogenous Rhythm Assessment

The constant routine protocol represents the gold-standard methodology for assessing endogenous circadian rhythms in humans by controlling for masking effects. This approach involves maintaining participants in a state of prolonged wakefulness under constant environmental conditions with regular, identical snacks, thereby eliminating the confounding effects of sleep, activity, light exposure, and feeding cycles [15]. In a comprehensive study examining the relationship between CBT rhythm and metabolite rhythmicity, researchers implemented a 40-hour constant routine with 23 healthy participants (mean age 25.4±5.7 years). CBT was measured at 30-second intervals using ingestible telemetric pills, while blood plasma samples were collected every 2 hours for metabolomic analysis of 929 individual metabolites [15]. This rigorous design enabled the isolation of endogenous circadian components from externally influenced variations, providing unprecedented insight into the relationship between central and peripheral rhythmicity.

The analytical approach involved assessing CBT amplitude through a two-harmonic fit and identifying circadian metabolites via cosine functions with 24-hour periods. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings across varying definitions of circadian rhythmicity [15]. This methodology demonstrated that individuals with higher CBT amplitude exhibited greater organization of circadian metabolite rhythms, supporting the role of temperature cycles in coordinating peripheral oscillators in humans, similar to mechanisms previously established in animal models [15].

Novel Demasking Algorithms for Enhanced Circadian Estimation

Recent methodological innovations have addressed limitations of traditional cosine-fitting approaches for CBT analysis. A novel physiology-grounded analytic method utilizing generalized additive models has demonstrated superior performance in separating circadian from non-circadian influences on CBT compared to conventional cosine models [19]. This approach was validated against data from 33 healthy participants (mean age 32±13 years) undergoing a 39-hour laboratory study with an initial overnight sleep followed by extended wakefulness.

The new model achieved significantly better fits to CBT data (Pearson R 0.90 versus 0.81 for cosine models) and substantially improved accuracy in estimating the circadian CBT minimum time (Tmin), reducing estimation error from 1.4 hours to just 0.2 hours [19]. This enhanced precision in determining circadian phase has important implications for DLMO validation studies, as it enables more accurate characterization of the phase relationship between melatonin rhythms and CBT minima without requiring highly controlled constant routine conditions. The method specifically addresses sleep-related masking effects that traditionally bias Tmin estimates earlier, providing a more accurate representation of endogenous circadian timing [19].

Animal Models for Circadian Re-entrainment Studies

Mouse models have provided valuable insights into circadian re-entrainment mechanisms following phase shifts. A recent investigation examined the effects of voluntary exercise on CBT re-alignment after a 12-hour light-dark inversion [16]. Fifteen C57BL/6 J mice were surgically implanted with intraperitoneal temperature-recording devices that measured CBT at 5-minute intervals throughout the study. Following baseline monitoring, mice underwent the phase shift, with eight animals provided running wheels (RW group) and seven maintained without wheels (CTRL group).

Cosinor analysis quantified key rhythm parameters including Percentage of Rhythm (PR), Midline Estimating Statistic of Rhythm (MESOR), Amplitude (AMP), and Acrophase (PHI) [16]. Despite initial disruption following the phase shift, the RW group demonstrated accelerated re-entrainment compared to sedentary controls, highlighting the dual role of exercise as both a potential disruptor and facilitator of circadian alignment depending on temporal context. This experimental paradigm provides a robust model for investigating interventions aimed at accelerating circadian re-synchronization.

This diagram illustrates the three primary experimental approaches for assessing circadian rhythms in core body temperature, highlighting their key features and shared outputs for circadian parameter estimation.

Comparative Analysis of CBT Measurement Technologies

Accuracy and Performance Metrics Across Modalities

Table 1: Comparative Accuracy of Core Body Temperature Measurement Technologies

Measurement Method	Reported Accuracy/Deviation	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Suitable Applications
Pulmonary Artery Catheter	Gold standard (reference method)	Most precise and repeatable	Highly invasive; restricted to ICUs	Critical care medicine
Esophageal Thermistor	High correlation with pulmonary artery	Quick reaction to temperature changes	High latency; uncomfortable	Intubated patients; surgical monitoring
Ingestible Telemetric Pills	Validated in constant routine studies [15]	Continuous data; well-tolerated	Single-use; cost (€50-80 per pill)	Research studies; athletic monitoring
Rectal Probe	Historically considered accurate	Widely available; repeatable	High latency; socially invasive	Medical settings; selective research
CORE Sensor	MAD: 0.21°C vs. e-pill [20]	Continuous; non-invasive; wearable	Emerging validation; scenario-dependent	Sports science; field research
Near-infrared + Biomarkers	R²=0.88 with vein diameter [17]	Completely non-invasive	Early development; requires validation	Potential field applications

The pulmonary artery catheter remains the clinical gold standard for CBT measurement due to its direct access to central blood flow, though its utility is restricted to intensive care settings [18]. Esophageal thermistors provide an excellent alternative for intubated patients, offering rapid response times to temperature changes, while ingestible telemetric pills have become the de facto standard for human circadian research, as evidenced by their use in constant routine studies [15] [19].

Recent technological advances have introduced non-invasive alternatives such as the CORE sensor, which uses a miniaturized energy transfer sensor and AI algorithms to estimate CBT. Validation studies report a Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) of 0.21°C compared to electronic pills, though accuracy can vary across different activities and scenarios [20]. Another innovative approach combines near-infrared imaging of hand vein diameter with heart rate and skin temperature measurements, achieving a promising R² of 0.88 in predicting CBT during resting conditions following passive heat stress [17].

Thermoregulation Models for CBT Prediction

Table 2: Performance Characteristics of Thermoregulation Models in Predicting Core Temperature

Model Name	Model Complexity	Core Temp RMSD	Skin Temp RMSD	Key Strengths	Validation Conditions
Gagge (Two-node)	Single segment	1.2°C (high metabolic rate)	Not specified	Computational simplicity	Limited to moderate conditions
Stolwijk-1971	25 nodes, 6 segments	Systematic bias ~0.45°C	Not specified	Historical significance	Shows bias at high metabolic rates
Stolwijk-2024	25 nodes, 6 segments	<0.3°C	<0.6°C	Updated coefficients; open source	Broad range including extreme heat
JOS3	85 nodes, 17 segments	<0.3°C	<0.6°C	Comprehensive segmentation	Reliable across multiple scenarios
UTCI-Fiala	187 nodes, 12 segments	<0.3°C	<0.6°C	Comprehensive validation	Gold standard for UTCI development

Advanced thermoregulation models represent powerful tools for predicting CBT under various environmental and metabolic conditions. Comparative analysis demonstrates that multi-node, multi-segment models (JOS3, UTCI-Fiala, and Stolwijk-2024) provide significantly superior performance compared to simpler models, with root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values below 0.3°C for core temperature and below 0.6°C for skin temperature across diverse conditions [21].

The recently introduced Stolwijk-2024 model retains the original Stolwijk framework (25 nodes across six body segments) but incorporates updated empirical coefficients derived from contemporary human trials, resulting in enhanced accuracy while maintaining the benefits of an open-source platform [21]. In contrast, simpler models like the single-segment, two-node Gagge model perform poorly under conditions involving high metabolic rates (>3.75 met) in warm to hot environments, with RMSD values reaching 1.2°C [21]. This comparative validation underscores the importance of model selection based on the specific application and environmental conditions being studied.

This diagram illustrates the hierarchy of CBT measurement technologies based on their accuracy and application scenarios, highlighting the trade-offs between precision and practicality.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Circadian CBT and DLMO Studies

Item	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
CBT Monitoring	Ingestible telemetric pills (BodyCap); CORE sensor; Rectal probes	Continuous CBT rhythm assessment	Select based on precision needs vs. practicality; consider constant routine protocols
DLMO Collection	Salivettes (Sarstedt); MEMs caps; Light meters; Blue light-blocking glasses	Endogenous melatonin rhythm assessment	Critical for dim-light conditions (<50 lux); objective compliance monitoring
Activity/Light Monitoring	Actigraphy watches (ActTrust 2); Digital luxmeters (LXM001)	Control for masking effects	Essential for documenting protocol compliance and environmental conditions
Data Analysis	Cosinor analysis packages (CatKIT); Generalized additive models	Rhythm parameter quantification	Novel demasking algorithms outperform traditional cosine fits
Environmental Control	Climate chambers; Hot water baths (LH-300)	Standardized thermal stimuli	Enable precise control of temperature, humidity for experimental manipulations
Modeling Platforms	JOS3; Stolwijk-2024; UTCI-Fiala models	Thermoregulatory prediction	Multi-node models show superior performance in extreme conditions

The selection of appropriate measurement technologies represents a critical decision in circadian research design, with ingestible telemetric pills serving as the current research standard for CBT assessment due to their validation in constant routine protocols [15] [19]. For DLMO studies, Salivette collection systems combined with Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) caps provide objective compliance monitoring essential for remote data collection [22].

Advanced analytical tools have dramatically improved the precision of circadian parameter estimation. The CatKIT package for cosinor analysis enables quantification of key rhythm parameters including MESOR (Midline Estimating Statistic of Rhythm), amplitude, and acrophase [16]. Meanwhile, novel generalized additive models have demonstrated superior performance in demasking non-circadian influences compared to traditional cosine-based methods, particularly for estimating the critical CBT minimum time (Tmin) [19].

Environmental control equipment remains fundamental for standardized thermal stimuli application. Climate chambers maintaining precise temperature and humidity levels, along with specialized equipment such as hot water baths for passive heat stress induction, enable systematic investigation of thermoregulatory responses [17] [21]. These controlled conditions are particularly important when validating new measurement technologies or establishing normative data for specific populations.

Implications for DLMO Protocol Validation and Circadian Research

The precise measurement of core body temperature rhythms provides an essential validation framework for DLMO protocols and other circadian assessment methodologies. Research demonstrates that a more robust central circadian clock, as indicated by higher CBT amplitude, is associated with greater organization of peripheral circadian rhythms [15]. This relationship underscores the importance of accurate CBT assessment when validating simplified circadian protocols intended for field use or clinical application.

Recent advancements in both measurement technologies and analytical approaches have significantly enhanced our ability to characterize circadian physiology. The development of novel demasking algorithms that more accurately separate endogenous circadian components from masking effects has particular relevance for DLMO validation studies [19]. These methodological improvements enable more precise determination of phase relationships between different circadian markers, strengthening the foundation for multi-system circadian assessment.

Future directions in circadian research will likely focus on further refining non-invasive measurement technologies, validating multi-parameter models across diverse populations, and establishing standardized protocols for circadian phenotyping. The integration of CBT monitoring with other circadian markers such as DLMO in both laboratory and field settings will continue to advance our understanding of circadian system organization and its implications for health and performance.

This guide examines the phase relationship between two key circadian biomarkers: the core body temperature (CBT) minimum (CBTmin) and the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO). Based on current research, the typical offset between these markers is approximately 6 hours, with CBTmin generally occurring after DLMO. This relationship is consistent enough for CBTmin to serve as a reliable phase marker in protocols where DLMO measurement is impractical, though the specific offset can vary based on measurement methodology and individual differences. The following sections provide a detailed comparison of measurement protocols, experimental data, and essential research tools for circadian phase assessment.

The temporal relationship between DLMO and CBTmin is a cornerstone of circadian biology. The data below summarizes typical phase offsets reported in recent literature.

Table 1: Typical Phase Offset Between DLMO and Core Body Temperature Minimum

Circadian Phase Marker	Typical Timing Relative to Sleep/Wake Cycle	Typical Offset (CBTmin after DLMO)	Supporting Evidence
DLMO	~2 hours before habitual bedtime [23]	Approximately 6 hours	The midpoint of the nocturnal CBT drop (CBTmin) occurs, on average, at 5.8 ± 1.7 hours after the day-night transition in rectal probe measurements [24].
CBT Minimum (CBTmin)	In the early morning hours, before wake time [25]		In a validation study, the wearable CALERA sensor recorded the CBTmin at 5.9 ± 1.6 hours [24], showing excellent agreement with the gold-standard rectal probe.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Phase Assessment

Validating the phase relationship between DLMO and CBTmin requires rigorous experimental protocols. The following sections detail methodologies from key studies.

Protocol for Validating a Wearable CBT Sensor Against a Rectal Probe

A 2025 study directly compared a patch-type wearable temperature sensor (CALERA Research) against rectal probe measurements, which is a gold-standard method for determining the circadian phase of CBT [24].

• Objective: To evaluate whether a wearable sensor could determine the circadian phase of core body temperature in a manner comparable to a rectal probe [24].
• Participants: 16 healthy participants (8 males, 8 females) aged 19-45 years [24].
• Procedure:
  • Participants wore the CALERA sensor on the chest and an actigraph on the wrist for 3-5 days in a real-world setting.
  • Simultaneous nocturnal rectal temperature measurements were taken using a flexible rectal probe inserted 15 cm beyond the anal sphincter [24].
  • Sleep and wakefulness were estimated using actigraphy and sleep diaries [24].
• Data Analysis:
  • The CBTmin was defined as the midpoint of the nocturnal decrease in CBT, identified using a geometric method.
  • The original 1-minute bin temperature data were averaged at 10-minute intervals and smoothed.
  • The CBTmin was identified as the middle point between where a line on the middle level between the temperature at the point more than 0.2°C higher from the minimum values crossed the descending and ascending parts of the temperature rhythm [24].
  • Reliability and agreement were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman analysis quantified the limits of agreement [24].

Protocol for At-Home DLMO Assessment

DLMO is the gold-standard marker for circadian phase. Recent innovations have focused on making this measurement more accessible through at-home kits [26].

• Objective: To determine an individual's circadian phase via DLMO in their home environment, eliminating geographical and financial barriers of lab-based assessments [26].
• Participants: Individuals with suspected circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders (CRSWDs) and healthy controls [26].
• Procedure:
  • Participants are provided with an at-home saliva collection kit.
  • They are instructed to collect saliva samples hourly, beginning 5-6 hours before their habitual bedtime and continuing until 2 hours after bedtime, typically yielding 8-9 samples per session [26].
  • Throughout the sampling period, participants must remain in dim light (e.g., <10 lux) to prevent melatonin suppression.
  • Participants simultaneously wear a wrist actigraph to monitor light exposure and activity, ensuring protocol compliance and providing contextual data [26].
• Data Analysis:
  • Saliva samples are assayed for melatonin concentration.
  • DLMO is calculated as the time when melatonin levels consistently exceed a predetermined threshold. Common methods include an absolute threshold (e.g., 3 or 4 pg/mL) or a relative threshold (e.g., 2 standard deviations above the mean of the first few low daytime values) [26].
  • The phase angle difference between DLMO and waketime (PADDLMO WAKETIME) is a key metric for quantifying circadian misalignment [23].

Figure 1: The Temporal Relationship between DLMO and CBTmin. This diagram illustrates the typical sequence and offset of key circadian phase markers throughout the night relative to the sleep-wake cycle.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful circadian rhythm research relies on specific tools for accurate data collection. The following table details essential materials and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Circadian Phase Assessment

Item	Function in Research	Specific Examples & Notes
Wearable Core Body Temperature Sensor	Provides a non-invasive method for continuous CBT monitoring to determine the CBTmin and assess circadian rhythm.	CALERA Research sensor (greenTEG): Uses heat flux and skin temperature with an AI algorithm to estimate CBT [24] [27]. Validated against rectal probes (ICC = 0.96) and ingestible pills [27].
Rectal Temperature Probe	Serves as a gold-standard method for invasive, high-fidelity CBT measurement in research settings.	A flexible wired rectal probe (e.g., 401J from Yellow Springs Instrument Co.) connected to a data logger [24]. Requires insertion 15 cm beyond the anal sphincter [24].
Actigraph	An objective, non-invasive tool for monitoring rest-activity cycles, estimating sleep-wake patterns, and monitoring ambient light exposure.	ActTrust2 (Condor Instruments); Actiwatch Spectrum Plus. Uses built-in algorithms (e.g., Cole-Kripke) for sleep scoring [24] [26]. Light data can be used in models to predict DLMO [26].
Salivary Melatonin Collection Kit	Enables the collection of saliva samples for the determination of DLMO in lab or at-home settings.	Includes salivettes, instructions, and cold-chain packaging for sample return. Critical for at-home DLMO protocols [26].
Radioimmunoassay (RIA) or Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits	Used to quantify melatonin concentration in saliva, plasma, or urine samples collected for DLMO determination.	Commercially available kits from various suppliers. The choice between absolute or relative threshold for DLMO calculation depends on the assay's sensitivity and protocol [26].

The consistent ~6-hour offset between DLMO and CBTmin, with CBTmin occurring later, underscores the robust phase relationship between the circadian rhythms of melatonin secretion and core body temperature. While DLMO remains the gold standard for circadian phase assessment, technological advancements in wearable CBT monitoring provide a valid and practical alternative for determining circadian phase in research protocols where continuous, long-term, or less invasive measurement is preferred. Understanding this relationship and the available tools for its assessment is fundamental for research in chronobiology, sleep medicine, and drug development.

The measurement of peripheral temperature, particularly at the wrist, has emerged as a significant non-invasive proxy for assessing circadian system function and associated disease risks. Unlike core body temperature, which requires invasive measurement techniques, wrist temperature rhythms provide a readily accessible window into the body's circadian regulation. Recent large-scale studies have demonstrated that the amplitude of daily wrist temperature rhythms serves as a digital biomarker for future disease risk, with diminished amplitude associated with increased incidence of conditions ranging from metabolic disorders to neurodegenerative diseases [28] [29]. This assessment is particularly valuable for researchers investigating circadian rhythms, as it offers a practical alternative to more burdensome methods like dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) measurement while still providing critical insights into circadian phase and regularity.

The scientific basis for this approach lies in the thermoregulatory coupling between the body's core and periphery. Peripheral wrist temperature oscillations typically run inverse to the core body temperature rhythm, with vasodilation in distal skin regions facilitating heat loss and core body cooling during sleep initiation [28]. This relationship makes wrist temperature a valuable proxy for estimating circadian entrainment, comparable to established markers like melatonin or core body temperature, while being far more practical for large-scale population studies and long-term monitoring [28] [4]. For researchers validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research, wrist temperature monitoring offers a complementary methodology that balances accuracy with practical feasibility in real-world settings.

Experimental Evidence: Linking Temperature Rhythms to Disease Risk

Key Findings from the UK Biobank Study

A landmark study analyzing data from 91,462 UK Biobank participants revealed striking associations between reduced wrist temperature amplitude and future disease incidence [28] [29]. The research utilized actigraphy devices with embedded temperature sensors to collect seven days of continuous wrist temperature data from participants during their normal daily activities. The temperature amplitude was calculated as the difference between the minimum and maximum temperature over 24-hour periods, with participants followed for future disease onset.

Table 1: Disease Risk Associated with Decreased Wrist Temperature Amplitude

Disease Condition	Hazard Ratio (HR)	95% Confidence Interval	Number of Cases
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)	1.91	1.58-2.31	603
Type 2 Diabetes	1.69	1.53-1.88	1,936
Extrapyramidal Movement Disorders	1.67	1.32-2.11	293
Renal Failure	1.25	1.14-1.37	Not specified
Hypertension	1.23	1.17-1.30	6,143
Pneumonia	1.22	1.11-1.33	Not specified
Disorders of Lipid Metabolism	1.16	1.09-1.24	4,072

The data revealed that a two-standard deviation decrease in wrist temperature amplitude (approximately 1.8°C) corresponded to significantly increased hazard ratios for multiple chronic conditions [28]. Of the 425 disease conditions analyzed with at least 200 cases each, 73 (17.2%) showed significant associations with decreased temperature amplitudes at a false discovery rate (FDR) of q < 0.05, while 26 (6.1%) passed the more stringent Bonferroni-correction threshold of α < 0.05 [28]. This phenome-wide approach demonstrated that disrupted temperature rhythms extend beyond traditionally circadian-linked disorders to include a broad spectrum of conditions affecting multiple organ systems.

The mechanisms underlying these associations likely involve circadian disruption at both molecular and systemic levels. The circadian clock operates as a transcriptional-translational feedback loop with core components including BMAL, PERIOD (PER), CRYPTOCHROME (CRY), and CLOCK proteins [8]. Disruption of this molecular machinery can impair physiological processes ranging from metabolism to immune function, creating vulnerabilities that manifest in the disease conditions identified [28] [8].

Comparison with Gold Standard Circadian Phase Assessment

The validity of wrist temperature as a circadian phase marker has been evaluated against established gold standard methods. A study involving 13 healthy volunteers demonstrated strong correlation (R = 0.756) between phase determinations from wrist temperature readings and dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) [28]. This correlation is clinically meaningful, as DLMO remains the most reliable method for assessing circadian phase in humans.

Table 2: Comparison of Circadian Phase Assessment Methods

Method	Correlation with DLMO	Advantages	Limitations
Wrist Temperature	R = 0.756 [28]	Non-invasive, continuous monitoring feasible, suitable for long-term studies	Affected by environmental factors and sleep-wake behavior
Core Body Temperature	High (inverse relationship) [28]	Gold standard for core rhythm	Invasive, impractical for field studies
DLMO	Self-reference	Gold standard for phase assessment	Requires controlled dim light conditions, burdensome sampling
Statistical Model Prediction	R² = 0.61 (DSWPD patients) [4]	Non-invasive, uses light exposure data	Requires complex modeling algorithms

For patients with Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD), statistical models incorporating light exposure data during phase delay/advance portions of the phase response curve have demonstrated the ability to predict DLMO with root mean square error of 57 minutes, achieving predictions within ±1 hour in 75% of participants [4]. Similarly, dynamic models have shown comparable performance with root mean square error of 68 minutes and predictions within ±1 hour in 58% of participants [4]. These findings support the utility of wrist temperature, particularly when combined with other ambulatory measures like light exposure, for estimating circadian phase in both healthy and clinical populations.

Methodological Approaches: From Data Collection to Analysis

Experimental Protocols for Wrist Temperature Assessment

The UK Biobank study implemented a rigorous protocol for wrist temperature assessment that can serve as a template for future research [28]. Participants wore actigraph devices on their wrists for seven consecutive days during normal daily activities, including sleep. The devices housed temperature sensors positioned near the skin that collected data continuously throughout the recording period. Importantly, participants collected these data under real-life conditions, meaning the wrist temperature rhythms contained both endogenous circadian components and sleep-wake behavior/environmentally evoked elements [28].

Data quality control procedures excluded participants with insufficient data quality or missing covariates, resulting in a final sample of 91,462 from an initial 103,688 participants [28]. The raw temperature data underwent processing to calculate the 24-hour amplitude (difference between peak and trough), with particular attention to the characteristic shape of the wrist temperature curve that typically shows increases during sleep onset, a plateau during sleep, and a sudden drop upon awakening followed by a secondary smaller peak in the afternoon [28].

For circadian phase prediction studies in DSWPD patients, researchers have employed complementary methodologies combining wrist temperature with other measures [4]. These protocols typically involve:

• Continuous monitoring of sleep-wake patterns and light exposure for approximately 7 days
• Measurement of DLMO as the reference gold standard through salivary melatonin sampling in controlled dim light conditions
• Application of mathematical models (both dynamic and statistical) to predict circadian phase from the ambulatory data
• Validation of predictions against actual DLMO measurements

This multi-modal approach enhances the reliability of wrist temperature as a circadian phase estimator and controls for potential confounding factors that might influence temperature readings independently of circadian regulation.

Technical Considerations and Measurement Accuracy

When implementing wrist temperature monitoring for research purposes, several technical factors must be considered to ensure data quality and interpretability:

• Sensor placement: Consistent positioning on the wrist is critical, with the dorsal side typically providing more reliable measurements than other positions [30].
• Environmental influences: Wrist temperature remains more stable than forehead measurements under different environmental circumstances, making it preferable for field studies [31].
• Device calibration: Regular calibration against reference standards is essential, as studies have shown significant variability in accuracy between different wearable devices [32].
• Data processing: Appropriate algorithms must account for missing data and potential artifacts from device removal or environmental extremes.

Studies evaluating the accuracy of wrist temperature measurements compared to gold standard core temperature measurements have yielded mixed results. In perioperative monitoring during major abdominal surgery, wrist-based temperature measurement demonstrated poor accuracy and precision (bias -2.2°C; 95% LoA -6.0 to 1.6) compared to clinical standards [32]. Similarly, a systematic review of non-invasive temperature measurement in ICU patients concluded that such methods have low accuracy compared to intravascular measurement [33].

However, for detecting relative changes in temperature patterns rather than absolute values, wrist temperature has proven valuable. In ovulation detection studies, continuously measured wrist skin temperature during sleep demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.62 vs. 0.23) than basal body temperature for detecting ovulation, despite lower specificity (0.26 vs. 0.70) [30]. This suggests that the pattern of temperature change may be more informative than absolute values for many research applications.

Comparative Analysis: Wrist Temperature Versus Alternative Methods

Advantages and Limitations Across Measurement Sites

Table 3: Comparison of Temperature Measurement Methods for Circadian Research

Measurement Site	Accuracy/Precision	Practicality for Long-term Monitoring	Correlation with Core Circadian Markers
Wrist Temperature	Moderate (pattern analysis) [28] [30]	High (well-tolerated, continuous)	Strong correlation with DLMO (R=0.756) [28]
Core Body Temperature	High (gold standard) [28]	Low (invasive, disruptive)	Inverse relationship with wrist temperature [28]
Tympanic Temperature	High for absolute values [34]	Moderate (requires repeated measurements)	Limited data available
Oral Temperature	Moderate [34]	Low for continuous assessment	Limited data available
Axillary Temperature	Low [34] [33]	Moderate	Limited data available

Wrist temperature monitoring offers distinct advantages for circadian research, particularly when the research question involves patterns over time rather than absolute temperature values. The continuous nature of data collection provides rich information about circadian phase, amplitude, and stability that cannot be captured through intermittent measurements [28] [30]. The non-invasive nature of wrist sensors also facilitates long-term studies with minimal participant burden, enabling researchers to investigate circadian patterns across multiple cycles or in response to interventions.

However, researchers must acknowledge the limitations of this methodology. Wrist temperature is influenced by multiple factors beyond circadian regulation, including environmental temperature, physical activity, and sleep-wake behavior [28]. The embedded nature of circadian rhythms within these masking effects necessitates careful experimental design and appropriate analytical approaches to extract the endogenous circadian component.

Integration with Other Circadian Assessment Methods

For comprehensive circadian assessment, wrist temperature monitoring is most powerful when integrated with complementary measures:

• Light exposure monitoring: Since light is the primary Zeitgeber for the human circadian system, simultaneous measurement of light exposure patterns enhances the interpretation of temperature rhythms [4].
• Activity monitoring: Actigraphy provides contextual information about sleep-wake patterns that influence and are influenced by circadian rhythms [8].
• Intermittent biomarker sampling: Strategic collection of saliva samples for melatonin assessment or cortisol measurement can validate continuous temperature readings [8] [4].

This multi-modal approach allows researchers to leverage the respective strengths of different assessment methods while mitigating their individual limitations. The resulting data integration provides a more comprehensive picture of circadian function than any single metric alone.

Research Applications and Practical Implementation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Materials for Wrist Temperature Circadian Research

Item	Function	Example Products/Models
Wearable Temperature Sensor	Continuous temperature data collection	Actigraphy devices with temperature sensors (UK Biobank) [28]
Light Exposure Monitor	Measures ambient light exposure as primary circadian Zeitgeber	Wrist-worn photometers or integrated sensors [4]
Data Analysis Software	Processes raw temperature data, calculates circadian parameters	Custom algorithms (R, Python), specialized circadian analysis packages
Reference Standard Measures	Validates against gold standard circadian markers	Salivary melatonin kits (for DLMO), core temperature monitors [4]
Environmental Control Equipment	Standardizes measurement conditions when needed	Climate-controlled rooms, standardized bedding [35]

Successful implementation of wrist temperature monitoring in circadian research requires careful selection of appropriate tools and methodologies. The UK Biobank study utilized actigraph devices with embedded temperature sensors that were originally included for accelerometer calibration but proved capable of capturing biologically meaningful temperature rhythms [28]. Current consumer wearable devices with skin temperature sensors (such as smartwatches) show promise for expanding this research paradigm to larger and more diverse populations [29].

For data analysis, researchers should employ specialized algorithms that can extract circadian parameters from raw temperature data. These typically include:

• Cosiner analysis to determine mesor, amplitude, and acrophase
• Non-linear curve fitting to model the characteristic biphasic pattern of wrist temperature
• Signal processing techniques to separate endogenous circadian components from masking effects

Visualization of the relationship between wrist temperature, core body temperature, and circadian phase can be represented through the following conceptual diagram:

Future Directions and Research Opportunities

The emerging evidence linking wrist temperature amplitude to disease risk opens several promising research avenues:

• Intervention studies: Investigating whether interventions that improve temperature rhythm amplitude (e.g., timed light exposure, regular sleep schedules) correspondingly reduce disease risk
• Mechanistic research: Elucidating the molecular pathways connecting peripheral temperature rhythms to specific disease pathologies
• Personalized medicine: Developing individualized reference ranges for temperature rhythms based on factors like age, sex, and chronotype
• Drug development: Utilizing wrist temperature as a biomarker for circadian effects of pharmaceuticals and for optimizing dosing timing

As wearable technology continues to evolve, the precision and capabilities of wrist temperature monitoring will likely improve, further enhancing its utility for both research and clinical applications. The integration of temperature data with other physiological parameters measured by wearable devices (heart rate variability, sleep metrics) promises to provide increasingly sophisticated insights into circadian health and its relationship to disease processes.

Wrist temperature amplitude has emerged as a scientifically valid and practical digital biomarker for circadian function and associated disease risk. Evidence from large-scale studies demonstrates that reduced temperature rhythm amplitude significantly predicts future incidence of conditions including NAFLD, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and renal failure. For researchers validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research, wrist temperature monitoring offers a complementary approach that balances scientific rigor with practical feasibility in real-world settings.

While methodological considerations regarding accuracy and confounding factors remain, the strong correlation between wrist temperature patterns and gold standard circadian markers supports its utility in both basic and clinical research. As wearable technology advances and our understanding of the relationship between peripheral temperature rhythms and health deepens, this biomarker is poised to play an increasingly important role in circadian medicine and preventive healthcare.

Implementing Synchronized Protocols: A Step-by-Step Guide for Concurrent DLMO and CBT Measurement

In the field of chronobiology, researchers increasingly recognize the value of multi-modal assessment for capturing a comprehensive picture of an individual's circadian phase. The simultaneous measurement of dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO) and core body temperature (CBT) provides complementary data streams that together offer a more robust characterization of circadian timing than either biomarker alone. DLMO reflects the endocrine component of the circadian system, while CBT rhythms represent the thermoregulatory output controlled by the suprachiasmatic nucleus [24]. This protocol design addresses the growing research need to validate DLMO methodologies against the established gold standard of CBT rhythm assessment, creating a framework for ethical and rigorous simultaneous data collection.

The integration of these methodologies presents unique challenges, including the need to minimize participant burden while maintaining data integrity, ensuring ethical protection of vulnerable populations, and managing the technical complexities of synchronized data collection. This guide objectively compares available technologies and methodologies while providing detailed experimental protocols for researchers undertaking validation studies within the broader context of circadian rhythm research.

Comparative Analysis of Measurement Technologies

Core Body Temperature Measurement Devices

Table 1: Comparison of Core Body Temperature Measurement Modalities

Measurement Type	Example Device	Accuracy/Reliability	Participant Burden	Research Context	Key Limitations
Invasive (Rectal Probe)	YSI 401J rectal probe with data logger	Gold standard for circadian phase assessment [24]	High (discomfort, sleep disruption) [36]	Laboratory and controlled settings	Significant discomfort potentially disrupts sleep [36]
Invasive (Ingestible Capsule)	Ingestible telemetry pill	High accuracy for intestinal temperature	Moderate (single ingestion, non-reusable) [36]	Exercise physiology, sleep studies	High cost, non-reusable nature limits application [36]
Non-invasive (Patch Sensor)	greenTeg CALERA sensor	Mean bias: 0.16h for CBT trough vs. rectal [24]	Low (worn on skin) [36] [24]	Free-living conditions, long-term monitoring	Accuracy affected by body fat rate, heat flux [36]

Dim-Light Melatonin Onset Collection Methods

Table 2: Comparison of DLMO Assessment Protocols

Collection Method	Setting	Implementation Requirements	Participant Compliance	Phase Marker Accuracy	Accessibility
Laboratory-based Salivary	Controlled lab	Dedicated facility, staffed 8-hour collections	High with supervision	Gold standard [22]	Low (geographic, financial barriers) [22]
Remote Self-directed Salivary	Home environment	Pre-configured kit with objective compliance measures	Good with proper support (66.7% success) [22]	Comparable to lab methods [22]	High (overcomes geographic barriers) [22]

Experimental Protocols for Simultaneous Collection

Integrated DLMO and CBT Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standardized protocol for simultaneous collection of DLMO and CBT in a research setting:

Detailed Simultaneous Collection Methodology

Participant Preparation Phase:

• Implement a 5-7 day sleep-wake stabilization period with fixed bedtimes and wake times based on participant's natural chronotype [37]
• Obtain comprehensive informed consent specifically addressing dual measurement procedures, data privacy, and potential for re-identification of physiological data [38] [39]
• Distribute and train participants on all monitoring equipment, including practice sessions with placebo sensors when possible

Synchronized Data Collection Protocol:

• DLMO Collection: Begin salivary sampling 6 hours before individual average bedtime, continuing until 2 hours after bedtime. Collect samples hourly in first 3 hours, then half-hourly as bedtime approaches [22]
• CBT Monitoring: Apply and activate non-invasive CBT sensors at least 2 hours before DLMO collection begins to establish stable baseline. For laboratory studies, verify sensor placement and function
• Environmental Controls: Maintain dim light conditions (<50 lux) verified by digital luxmeter throughout collection period. Participants wear blue light-blocking glasses if using electronic devices [22]
• Compliance Monitoring: Use MEMs caps on saliva tubes to timestamp samples. For CBT, document any sensor removal or adjustment in participant log

Data Processing and Phase Analysis:

• DLMO Calculation: Using the Hockeystick method with 3 pg/ml threshold or linear interpolation between points crossing 4 pg/ml threshold [22]
• CBT Trough Determination: Identify the midpoint of nocturnal CBT decline using geometric method as the midpoint between two points where temperature crosses a line at the middle level between the temperature at the point >0.2°C higher than minimum values and the minimum value itself [24]
• Phase Alignment Analysis: Calculate time difference between DLMO and CBT trough for each participant to establish individual phase relationships

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Simultaneous Circadian Assessment

Item	Specification	Function in Protocol	Implementation Notes
Salivary Collection Kit	Sarstedt Salivettes (9 per participant)	DLMO assessment via melatonin concentration	Use untreated cotton swabs; avoid citric acid stimulation [22]
Actigraphy Device	ActTrust2 watch (Condor Instruments)	Objective sleep-wake monitoring	Worn on non-dominant wrist; use Cole-Kripke algorithm for scoring [24] [22]
Non-invasive CBT Sensor	greenTeg CALERA sensor	Continuous core temperature estimation	Place on torso ~20cm below armpit; medical-grade adhesive patch [36] [24]
Light Measurement	VWR Digital Luxmeter LXM001	Verify dim-light conditions (<50 lux)	Calibrate before each use; document ambient light levels [22]
Compliance Monitoring	MEMs (Medication Event Monitoring System) caps	Objective sample collection timing	Attach to Salivette tubes; records exact opening timestamps [22]
Data Logging	NT-logger N543R (for rectal probe)	Continuous temperature recording	1-minute bin data collection; compatible with multiple sensor types [24]

Ethical Considerations in Circadian Research Protocol Design

Participant Privacy and Data Protection

Circadian biomarker data presents unique privacy concerns as both genetic information (relevant to melatonin metabolism) and protected health information. Researchers must implement tiered data classification based on re-identification risk [38]. Specific protections include:

• Data De-identification: Remove direct identifiers from raw data while retaining necessary metadata for analysis
• Secure Transfer and Storage: Encrypt all data transfers between devices and central repositories; store identifiable data separately from research data [38] [39]
• Limited Access: Implement role-based access controls to ensure only authorized personnel can link identifiable information with research data

Informed Consent Particularities

The complexity of simultaneous biomarker collection requires enhanced consent processes that address:

• Dual Measurement Burden: Clearly explain time requirements and physical sensations associated with both DLMO and CBT measurements
• Data Linkage Risks: Disclose potential for re-identification even with aggregated data, particularly for small population subgroups [38]
• Future Use Provisions: Specify whether data may be used for secondary analyses or shared in accordance with FAIR principles while maintaining ethical constraints [38]

Vulnerability and Equity Considerations

Circadian research often targets specific populations, including adolescents [37], chronic pain patients [22], and those with sleep disorders. Special protections include:

• Developmentally Appropriate Assent: For pediatric participants, use age-appropriate explanations and engagement strategies
• Burden Mitigation: For clinical populations, schedule collections to minimize interference with treatment and recovery
• Chronotype Accommodation: Design collection protocols that accommodate both "lark" and "owl" chronotypes without privileging one circadian phenotype [37]

The simultaneous collection of DLMO and core body temperature represents a methodological advance in circadian rhythm research, allowing for cross-validation of these complementary biomarkers. The protocols outlined here provide a framework for conducting this simultaneous assessment while addressing the ethical imperatives of participant welfare, privacy protection, and equitable research practices. As technological innovations continue to improve both DLMO and CBT measurement modalities, researchers must maintain rigorous validation standards while expanding accessibility of circadian phase assessment to broader and more diverse populations.

The accurate assessment of an individual's circadian phase is fundamental to chronobiology research and the growing field of circadian medicine. While core body temperature (CBT) has historically been a key physiological variable for monitoring circadian rhythms, its measurement is susceptible to masking effects from physical activity, postural changes, and sleep-wake cycles. In contrast, the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) derived from salivary sampling provides a more robust and reliable marker of the endogenous circadian phase set by the suprachiasmatic nucleus [9]. This guide compares methodologies for salivary DLMO assessment, focusing on protocol standardization, analytical precision, and threshold determination, thereby establishing a validated framework for circadian phase evaluation that surpasses the limitations of CBT for many research and clinical applications.

Fundamental Principles of DLMO

Melatonin as a Circadian Phase Marker

Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine) is a neurohormone secreted by the pineal gland whose production is tightly controlled by the central circadian pacemaker. Its secretion follows a robust diurnal rhythm, with low levels during the day and a sharp rise in the evening, signaling the onset of the biological night [9] [40]. The Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) is defined as the time at which melatonin concentrations begin to rise under dim light conditions. It is considered the gold standard for assessing the timing of the human circadian system because it is less susceptible to masking effects from non-photic stimuli compared to other markers like CBT or cortisol [41] [9].

DLMO in the Context of Core Body Temperature Rhythm

The circadian rhythm of CBT, characterized by a trough during the late night and a rise towards the morning, has long been used in circadian research. However, its waveform is significantly influenced by daily behaviors such as sleep, activity, and food intake. DLMO provides a cleaner marker of endogenous circadian timing because melatonin secretion from the pineal gland is less affected by these masking factors, although it is highly sensitive to light exposure [9]. This comparative resistance to non-photic masking makes DLMO a more reliable endpoint for validating circadian phase in interventional studies, particularly those investigating chronotherapeutic applications in drug development.

Salivary Sampling Protocols

At-Home versus In-Lab Sampling

Traditional DLMO assessment was conducted in laboratory settings, but recent advancements have validated reliable home-based sampling, which offers ecological advantages by capturing circadian phase in a participant's natural environment.

Table 1: Comparison of Sampling Environments for DLMO Assessment

Feature	In-Lab Sampling	At-Home Sampling
Environmental Control	High; light, posture, and activity are strictly controlled [42]	Variable; relies on participant compliance with instructions [41] [43]
Participant Burden	High; requires overnight stay, disruptive to normal routine [40]	Low; performed in a naturalistic setting [41] [43]
Cost & Accessibility	Costly and limited to specialized centers [41]	Cost-effective and accessible to broader populations [43]
Feasibility for Repeated Measures	Low	High
Data Fidelity	Potentially higher due to strict controls [42]	Good; studies show high correlation with in-lab DLMO (e.g., mean difference of ~37 min) [42]

Standardized Sampling Procedures

Adherence to a strict protocol is critical for obtaining valid DLMO measurements, whether collected in-lab or at-home.

• Sampling Window and Frequency: A typical protocol involves collecting 7-8 hourly saliva samples, beginning 5 hours before habitual bedtime and ending 1-2 hours after bedtime [40]. For higher precision, a 13-point collection with half-hourly sampling can be used, though the difference in DLMO estimation is often minimal and must be balanced against increased cost and participant burden [40]. The timing can be adjusted if a severe phase shift is suspected [40].
• Dim Light Conditions (<20 lux): Participants must remain in dim light for the duration of the sampling period, as even brief exposure to ordinary room light can suppress melatonin secretion and alter the DLMO [42]. The use of a lux meter is recommended to verify light levels.
• Pre-Sampling Restrictions: Participants should avoid activities that can confound melatonin levels, including:
  • Brushing teeth or eating for at least 10-15 minutes before each sample to avoid food debris or bleeding gums [43].
  • Consuming caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine during the sampling window.
  • Vigorous exercise and assuming a supine posture, which can affect melatonin secretion [44].
• Sample Handling: Saliva samples are typically collected using specialized swabs (e.g., Salivettes) or via passive drool into a tube. Samples should be stored immediately in a home freezer after collection and subsequently transported on ice or frozen gel packs to the laboratory for analysis [43].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps in a standardized at-home DLMO sampling protocol:

Analytical Assays for Salivary Melatonin

The accurate quantification of low melatonin concentrations in saliva requires highly sensitive and specific analytical methods.

Table 2: Comparison of Analytical Methods for Salivary Melatonin Detection

Method	Principle	Reported Sensitivity	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Competitive ELAA [45]	Uses a biotin-tagged DNA aptamer competing with sample melatonin for binding sites on a coated plate.	0.57 pg/mL	High specificity for melatonin; avoids immunogenic procedures; uniform batch production.	Novel method; less established in clinical practice.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) [40]	Uses antibodies against melatonin; a competitive assay format is common for small molecules.	1.35 pg/mL (Salimetrics assay)	High throughput; well-established; commercially available kits; no radioactivity.	Potential for cross-reactivity with melatonin metabolites; depends on antibody quality.
Radioimmunoassay (RIA) [9] [45]	Uses a radiolabeled form of melatonin competing with sample melatonin for a limited number of antibody binding sites.	<1.0 pg/mL (varies by kit)	High historical sensitivity; well-validated.	Requires handling and disposal of radioactive materials.
Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [9] [45]	Physically separates melatonin from other compounds before detection based on mass-to-charge ratio.	<1.0 pg/mL	Exceptional specificity and sensitivity; considered a reference method.	Expensive instrumentation; requires skilled operators; complex sample preparation.

The development of novel detection methods like the Competitive Enzyme-Linked Aptamer-Based Assay (ELAA) shows significant promise. One recent study reported a detection limit of 0.57 pg/mL, which is highly beneficial for accurately determining DLMO in populations with naturally low melatonin production, such as the elderly or individuals with neurodegenerative conditions [45].

Threshold Determination Methods

The point at which the rising melatonin curve is defined as the "onset" can be calculated using different thresholds, each with specific applications and considerations.

Table 3: Comparison of DLMO Threshold Determination Methods

Method	Calculation	Advantages	Disadvantages	Suitability for Low Producers
Fixed Absolute Threshold [42] [40]	Time when interpolated melatonin concentration crosses a pre-set value (e.g., 3 pg/mL or 4 pg/mL for saliva).	Simple, objective, and widely used.	May miss onset in individuals who are "low secretors" and never cross the threshold.	Poor
Variable Relative Threshold (2k/3k Method) [40]	Threshold is set at 2 standard deviations above the mean of the first 3 (3k) low daytime baseline values.	Personalized to an individual's baseline secretion; can detect onset in low producers.	Unreliable if baseline values are too few or inconsistent.	Excellent
Hockey-Stick Algorithm [43] [9]	An objective, automated algorithm that estimates the point of change from baseline to the rising phase of the melatonin curve.	Reduces subjective bias; automated.	Requires specific software implementation; less familiar to some researchers.	Good

The choice of threshold method can significantly impact the calculated DLMO time. For instance, one study noted that a variable threshold method produced DLMO estimates that were 22–24 minutes earlier than a fixed 3 pg/mL threshold [9]. The "Hockeystick" method has also been employed successfully in recent studies involving pediatric populations [43]. Researchers must select the method based on their population's characteristics, with the variable threshold often recommended for heterogeneous groups or those likely to include low melatonin producers [40].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful DLMO assessment relies on a suite of specialized materials and tools to ensure protocol adherence and data quality.

Table 4: Essential Materials for DLMO Research

Item	Function	Example/Specification
Saliva Collection Device	Non-invasive collection of saliva samples.	Sarstedt Salivettes [43] or passive drool tubes.
Dim Light Verification	Ensures ambient light is below the melatonin-suppressing threshold.	VWR Digital Luxmeter LXM001 or equivalent [43].
Blue Light-Blocking Glasses	Protective measure to prevent accidental light exposure during sampling.	Worn during sampling if screen use is necessary [43].
Actigraphy Watch	Objectively monitors sleep-wake cycles and activity patterns for 1-2 weeks prior to DLMO to determine habitual sleep onset.	Actiwatch Spectrum Plus [41], ActTrust 2 [43].
Electronic Compliance Monitoring	Tracks exact sampling times to verify protocol adherence.	Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) bottle cap [43].
Temperature Sensor	Ensures samples are kept frozen during storage and transport.	Included in the shipping kit [43].
Validated Melatonin Assay	Precisely quantifies salivary melatonin levels.	Salimetrics Melatonin ELISA kit (Sensitivity: 1.35 pg/mL) [40] or LC-MS/MS.
Sleep Diary	Subjective record of sleep and wake times used with actigraphy.	Consensus Sleep Diary [46].

The validation of robust salivary DLMO protocols establishes a critical tool for circadian science, offering a superior alternative to CBT for pinpointing endogenous circadian phase with minimal masking. The move towards standardized, home-based sampling coupled with highly sensitive analytical methods like LC-MS/MS and novel aptamer-based assays ensures that DLMO assessment is both accurate and accessible. The consistent application of these protocols—with careful attention to dim light conditions, sampling frequency, and appropriate threshold determination—is fundamental for generating reliable, reproducible data. This methodological rigor is essential for advancing our understanding of circadian rhythms in human health and disease, and for effectively evaluating chronotherapeutics in drug development.

Accurate measurement of core body temperature (CBT) is fundamental to physiological monitoring, from diagnosing febrile illnesses to preventing heat stroke in athletes and occupational workers. For researchers investigating circadian rhythms, CBT serves as a key output rhythm of the circadian clock, and its precise measurement is crucial for validating other circadian biomarkers, such as dim light melatonin onset (DLMO). The choice of measurement technology—ranging from traditional rectal probes to ingestible sensors and novel wearable devices—directly impacts data reliability. This guide objectively compares the performance, accuracy, and application of these primary CBT measurement methods based on experimental data, providing a foundation for their use in validating circadian protocols.

Methodological Comparison of Core Temperature Measurement Techniques

The table below summarizes the key performance characteristics of different core body temperature measurement methods as established by comparative studies.

Method	Reported Mean Bias vs. Rectal Temperature	Key Limitations & Considerations	Typical Use Context
Ingestible Sensor (e-Celsius)	-0.25°C to -0.44°C during exercise [47]	Can underestimate rectal temperature; requires calibration; slow response to rapid temperature changes [47] [48].	Exercise physiology, field studies, circadian rhythm research [47] [49].
Ingestible Sensor (General)	-0.59°C at rest to -0.93°C at peak exercise [50]	Systematic bias requires correction; position in GI tract affects reading; compromised by food/fluid intake [50] [51] [48].	Laboratory and field-based exercise studies.
Rectal Probe (Wired)	Gold standard reference	Inconvenient, uncomfortable, impractical for field use or aquatic environments [51].	Laboratory settings, clinical validation studies.
Wireless Rectal Pill (Suppository)	< 0.3°C across various conditions [51]	Provides valid, wireless rectal measurement; avoids discomfort of wired probes [51].	Scenarios requiring gold-standard accuracy without wired restrictions.
Non-Invasive Wearable (CORE Sensor)	-0.71°C to +0.56°C (varies with condition and sex) [52]	Accuracy decreases with high air velocity; can underestimate temperature; validity takes hours to stabilize in passive heat [52].	Sports, occupational settings where non-invasiveness is prioritized.

Experimental Protocols for Validation

To ensure data quality, researchers employ standardized validation protocols. The following workflows detail two common experimental approaches for validating core temperature measurement devices.

Protocol 1: Water Bath Calibration

This laboratory protocol assesses the intrinsic accuracy of temperature sensors against a reference thermometer in a controlled water bath [47] [48].

Protocol 2: In Vivo Validation During Exercise

This protocol validates a device's performance against a gold standard (rectal probe) during dynamic physiological changes in human subjects [47] [52].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

Item	Function in Experimentation
Certified Traceable Thermometer	Serves as the primary reference standard for calibrating other temperature sensors in a water bath [48].
Circulated Water Bath	Provides a stable, uniform-temperature environment for device calibration across a physiological range (35-43°C) [48].
Rectal Thermistor & Cable	The widely accepted gold-standard reference in human in vivo studies for validating other core temperature devices [47] [51].
Ingestible Telemetry Capsule	A pill-sized sensor that measures gastrointestinal temperature, enabling non-invasive monitoring in field and lab settings [50] [49].
Data Logger/Receiver	A wearable unit that receives, stores, and transmits temperature data from the ingestible capsule or other wireless sensors [47].
Calibration Software	Used to apply linear regression corrections to raw sensor data based on water bath results, improving accuracy [48].

Critical Analysis and Application in Circadian Research

The presented data reveals a critical theme: no method is perfect, and understanding systematic bias is paramount. Ingestible sensors consistently demonstrate a negative bias compared to rectal temperature, which can be mitigated through calibration [47] [48]. For circadian research, this is particularly important when using CBT to validate DLMO protocols.

• Temporal Dynamics: Ingestible pills are well-suited for tracking the circadian rhythm of CBT, which follows a predictable, slow waveform. However, their slower response to rapid changes makes them less ideal for capturing acute, transient temperature spikes [47].
• Practicality for Protocols: The non-invasive nature of ingestible sensors and new wearable devices allows for uninterrupted data collection over 24-hour periods in ambulatory participants, which is essential for robust circadian phase assessment. In contrast, rectal probes are impractical for such long-term, free-living protocols [51] [8].
• Validation Imperative: Whether for circadian phenotyping or heat stress monitoring, the choice of sensor should be guided by the research question and required accuracy. Any CBT measurement used to validate a separate circadian biomarker like DLMO must itself be rigorously validated against a gold standard within the specific experimental context [48] [52].

The selection of a core body temperature measurement technology involves a careful trade-off between accuracy, practicality, and the specific physiological question. Rectal probes remain the gold standard for laboratory accuracy, ingestible sensors offer a validated balance of accuracy and convenience for field-based and circadian studies, and emerging wearable sensors provide a non-invasive alternative that is improving but requires further validation under diverse conditions. For research where precise temperature data is used to validate other complex physiological protocols like DLMO, a rigorous device-specific validation and calibration process is not just recommended—it is essential.

In the field of human circadian biology, the accurate assessment of circadian phase is fundamental for both research and clinical applications. The dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) has emerged as the gold standard marker for determining the timing of the central circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) [9]. Similarly, the rhythm of core body temperature (CBT) provides a valuable physiological output of the circadian system. However, both measurements are highly susceptible to masking influences from external factors that can obscure the true endogenous circadian signal [53] [54].

The two-process model of sleep regulation posits that circadian rhythms are co-regulated by an endogenous circadian pacemaker and a homeostatic sleep process [8] [55]. While this model successfully explains many aspects of sleep-wake regulation, it does not fully account for the substantial effects of confounding variables such as posture, activity, sleep-wake state, and ambient light on measured circadian parameters. These factors can induce masking effects that alter the expression of circadian rhythms independently of the endogenous pacemaker, potentially leading to inaccurate phase assessments and misinterpretation of experimental results [53].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of methodologies for controlling key confounders in circadian research, with a specific focus on validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature measurements. By synthesizing experimental data and methodological insights, we aim to equip researchers with practical strategies to enhance the validity and reproducibility of circadian studies.

Physiological Pathways of Circadian Regulation and Confounding Influences

The mammalian circadian system comprises a hierarchical structure with the SCN as the master pacemaker, which synchronizes peripheral clocks throughout the body and regulates physiological rhythms [56] [11]. The following diagram illustrates the key pathways through which the SCN regulates circadian physiology and how confounders can interfere with these processes.

Figure 1: Circadian Regulation Pathways and Key Confounders. The SCN regulates physiological rhythms through multiple pathways (blue arrows). Confounding factors (red) can directly mask these rhythms or interfere with regulatory pathways.

The SCN receives light input via intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) containing the photopigment melanopsin, which project to the SCN through the retinohypothalamic tract [56]. The SCN then synchronizes peripheral clocks and regulates physiological rhythms through neural, endocrine, and behavioral outputs. The molecular clock machinery consists of transcriptional-translational feedback loops involving core clock genes such as CLOCK, BMAL1, PER, and CRY [8] [56] [11].

Comparative Analysis of Key Confounders: Experimental Data and Methodological Controls

Ambient Light

Experimental Evidence: Light represents the primary zeitgeber for the human circadian system and has a profound impact on melatonin secretion. Research has demonstrated that display background illuminance and spectrum significantly affect circadian parameters, with low Circadian Stimulus (CS) conditions associated with earlier timing of core body temperature minimum and improved sleep quality [35]. Specifically, low CS conditions resulted in reduced cortisol concentrations, diminished visual fatigue, and enhanced cognitive performance during nighttime exposure [35]. The CS metric has been validated as an effective indicator of display circadian stimulation, showing stronger correlation with circadian outcomes than other quantification metrics such as Equivalent Melanopic Lux and Melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance [35].

Control Methodologies: For DLMO assessment, sampling must occur under dim light conditions, typically <10 lux [44] [9]. The constant routine (CR) protocol represents the gold standard methodology, maintaining participants in a semi-recumbent position under dim light conditions with evenly distributed nutritional intake to minimize masking effects [53] [54]. For clinical or field settings, implementing a modified constant routine with controlled ambient light <10 lux during sampling periods provides a practical alternative [44].

Posture

Experimental Evidence: Posture changes exert significant effects on cardiovascular parameters and core body temperature rhythms. A study investigating the impact of posture under a modified constant routine protocol found that the steep blood pressure increase in the morning is not driven by the circadian clock but rather by sympathoadrenal factors related to awakening and corresponding anticipatory mechanisms [53]. Postural changes associated with the sleep-wake cycle represent a prominent daily rhythm with profound effects on the autonomic nervous, cardiovascular, and muscular systems [54]. The 60-day head-down-tilt bed rest study demonstrated that removal of postural cycles significantly affects 24-hour rhythmicity, reducing the amplitude of wrist skin temperature rhythms due to increased daytime temperatures [54].

Control Methodologies: Maintaining a semi-recumbent position throughout the sampling period effectively minimizes postural confounding [53] [54]. When continuous semi-recumbency is impractical, standardizing posture transitions and maintaining supine position for at least 30 minutes before sampling can reduce cardiovascular artifacts. For core body temperature validation studies, controlling for posture is particularly crucial as postural changes significantly impact peripheral vasodilation and heat distribution [53] [54].

Physical Activity

Experimental Evidence: Motor activity serves as an important circadian output that also feeds back to influence circadian phase and amplitude. Research has demonstrated that activity levels substantially elevate systolic blood pressure, while heart rate is affected by both activity and sleep [53]. The head-down-tilt bed rest study showed that reduced daytime activity during bed rest resulted in decreased amplitude of activity rhythms, confirming that activity patterns significantly influence the expression of circadian parameters [54]. Furthermore, chronic sleep deficits leading to reduced sleep quality have been associated with impaired postural control, demonstrating the interaction between activity, sleep, and physiological function [57].

Control Methodologies: The constant routine protocol controls activity by maintaining participants in a state of continuous wakefulness with minimal physical movement [54]. For modified protocols, activity should be standardized and limited to gentle movement with assistance for bathroom visits. Participants should refrain from vigorous exercise for at least 24 hours before DLMO or core body temperature assessment [44] [54].

Sleep-Wake State

Experimental Evidence: Sleep and wake states represent potent masking factors for both melatonin secretion and core body temperature. Studies have shown that sleep, independent of circadian influences, lowers nighttime diastolic blood pressure but has no effect on systolic blood pressure [53]. The head-down-tilt bed rest study further demonstrated that sleep structure and spectral composition of the EEG during sleep are significantly affected by protocols that eliminate postural cycles, with time in slow-wave sleep increasing during recovery from bed rest and EEG activity in alpha and beta frequencies increasing during NREM and REM sleep [54]. Chronic poor sleep quality has been shown to impair postural control similarly to total sleep deprivation, particularly affecting performance during eyes-closed conditions [57].

Control Methodologies: For DLMO assessment, participants should remain awake and alert throughout the sampling period to avoid sleep-associated suppression of melatonin secretion [44] [9]. The constant routine protocol maintains participants awake for at least 24 hours to eliminate sleep-wake confounding [54]. When implementing modified protocols, researchers should monitor vigilance state using EEG or simplified methods such as frequent behavioral checks to ensure wakefulness during sampling [44].

Table 1: Comparative Impact of Confounders on Circadian Parameters

Confounder	Impact on DLMO	Impact on Core Body Temperature	Key Experimental Findings
Ambient Light	High - suppresses melatonin secretion	Moderate - indirect effects via SCN	Low CS conditions associated with earlier CBT minimum and improved sleep quality [35]
Posture	Low - indirect effects	High - affects heat distribution	Morning BP increase driven by posture change, not circadian clock [53]; HDBR reduces amplitude of wrist temperature rhythm [54]
Physical Activity	Moderate - indirect effects	High - generates heat	Activity substantially elevates SBP; reduced activity during HDBR decreases rhythm amplitude [53] [54]
Sleep-Wake State	High - suppresses melatonin	High - lowers temperature	Sleep lowers nighttime DBP; chronic poor sleep impairs postural control [53] [57]

Integrated Methodological Framework for Controlling Confounders

Standardized Experimental Protocols

The following experimental workflow diagram illustrates a rigorous approach to controlling for multiple confounders simultaneously in circadian research protocols.

Figure 2: Integrated Experimental Workflow for Controlling Circadian Confounders. This protocol controls for multiple confounders (red) during the constant routine phase to unmask endogenous circadian rhythms.

Comparison of Protocol Stringency Levels

Table 2: Protocol Stringency Levels for Controlling Confounders in Circadian Research

Control Method	Stringency Level	Light Control	Posture Control	Activity Control	Sleep-Wake Control	Recommended Use
Constant Routine	High	<10 lux, dim light	Semi-recumbent, continuous	Minimal, supervised movement	Continuous wakefulness	Gold standard phase assessment
Modified Constant Routine	Medium	<10 lux during sampling	Semi-recumbent during sampling	Limited, standardized	Awake during sampling only	Clinical DLMO assessment
Structured Baseline	Low	Natural patterns, avoid bright light	Normal patterns, record changes	Normal patterns, record	Normal sleep, record timing	Ambulatory monitoring studies

The constant routine protocol represents the most stringent approach, maintaining participants in a state of controlled wakefulness, semi-recumbency, minimal activity, and dim light conditions for at least 24 hours [53] [54]. This method effectively minimizes masking effects but presents practical challenges for clinical implementation. Modified constant routine protocols offer a practical compromise by controlling confounders specifically during biological sampling periods rather than continuously [44]. Structured baseline protocols represent the least stringent approach but may be sufficient for studies where relative rather than absolute phase assessment is adequate.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Equipment

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Circadian Confounder Control

Item	Function	Application Notes
Actigraphy Devices	Objective monitoring of activity and sleep-wake patterns	Worn continuously for 7+ days before study; provides data on TST, WASO, sleep efficiency [57]
Salivary Melatonin Kits	DLMO assessment via saliva sampling	Non-invasive; suitable for frequent sampling; use LC-MS/MS for superior specificity [11] [9]
Core Body Temperature Sensors	Monitoring circadian temperature rhythms	Gold standard for CBT; wearable sensors for continuous monitoring [54]
Controlled Lighting Systems	Precise manipulation of light exposure	Capable of maintaining <10 lux for DLMO; adjustable spectrum and intensity [35] [44]
Posture-Controlled Chairs/Beds	Standardization of participant posture	Semi-recumbent position maintenance; minimize postural changes [53] [54]

The valid assessment of circadian phase in humans requires meticulous control of confounding variables that can mask endogenous rhythmicity. Ambient light represents the most significant confounder for DLMO assessment, while posture and activity substantially impact core body temperature measurements. The constant routine protocol remains the gold standard methodology, though modified approaches can provide practical alternatives for clinical applications. By implementing the standardized methodologies and control strategies outlined in this guide, researchers can enhance the accuracy and reproducibility of circadian phase assessments, ultimately advancing both basic circadian science and clinical translation. Future methodological developments should focus on creating more accessible protocols that maintain scientific rigor while accommodating diverse research and clinical settings.

Data Synchronization and Time-Series Analysis for Phase Marker Identification

The accurate identification of biological phase markers is paramount for advancing our understanding of circadian rhythms and their role in health and disease. This guide objectively compares the performance of modern methods for phase marker identification, framed within the critical context of validating dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) protocols against the historical gold standard of core body temperature (CBT) measurement. For researchers and drug development professionals, the choice of assay and analytical technique directly impacts the reliability of data in chronobiology studies and clinical trials for circadian-related therapies. The emergence of novel wearable sensors and sophisticated computational approaches has created a need for clear, data-driven comparisons of these methodologies. This analysis synthesizes current experimental data to evaluate the precision, practicality, and analytical power of contemporary solutions, providing a foundation for robust experimental design in the validation of DLMO and other circadian protocols.

Comparative Analysis of Phase Marker Assays

The assessment of circadian phase relies on measuring robust, time-dependent biological signals, known as phase markers. The following table summarizes the key performance characteristics of primary assays used in research and clinical validation studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Primary Phase Marker Assays

Assay	Key Measured Variable	Phase Correlation with DLMO	Key Experimental Findings	Typical Protocol Duration
Core Body Temperature (CBT)	Endogenous circadian rhythm of core body temperature	Inverse relationship to distal skin temperature rhythms [28]	Wrist temperature amplitude is inverse to core body temperature rhythm; a 2 SD (1.8°C) decrease in wrist amplitude linked to disease risk [28]	24+ hours in a controlled laboratory setting
Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO)	Onset of melatonin secretion in dim light	Gold Standard (Self-Referent)	At-home saliva collection feasible; strong correlation (r=0.91-0.93) with lab-based DLMO [26]	6-8 hours of hourly saliva sampling before & after habitual bedtime [26]
Distal Skin Temperature (DST)	Temperature rhythm at the wrist (inverse to CBT)	Wrist temperature phase correlates strongly with DLMO (R=0.756) [28]	Predictive model (predictDLMO.com) uses actigraphy to estimate DLMO (Lin’s concordance 0.70) [26]	7+ days of continuous actigraphy/wearable data [26]

The experimental data reveals a significant transition in the field from intensive laboratory measurements to decentralized, longitudinal monitoring. Core Body Temperature, while a foundational marker, requires invasive ingestion of a temperature pill or rigorous lab conditions to unmask its endogenous rhythm from masking effects like activity and food intake [28]. In contrast, Distal Skin Temperature (e.g., at the wrist) provides a practical and inversely correlated proxy for CBT rhythms. Large-scale phenome-wide studies, such as the one in the UK Biobank, have validated its clinical relevance, demonstrating that a two-standard deviation (1.8°C) lower wrist temperature amplitude corresponds to a 91% increased risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and a 69% increased risk for type 2 diabetes [28]. The validation of DLMO has been accelerated by the development of robust at-home collection kits, which have shown a high correlation (r = 0.91-0.93) with lab-based measurements, dramatically improving patient access and reducing geographical and financial barriers to gold-standard phase assessment [26].

Experimental Protocols for Phase Marker Validation

A critical step in circadian research is the rigorous, method-specific protocol required to generate reliable and reproducible phase estimates.

Laboratory-Based Core Body Temperature Protocol

The protocol for assessing CBT rhythm requires controlled conditions to minimize exogenous "masking" effects. Participants are typically admitted to a laboratory suite for at least 24 hours. The protocol involves:

• Constant Routine or Forced Desynchrony Protocol: These specialized designs control for environmental and behavioral influences like sleep-wake cycles, posture, light exposure, and calorie intake to reveal the underlying endogenous circadian rhythm.
• Data Collection: CBT is continuously measured via an ingested telemetric temperature pill. Data points are collected at high frequency (e.g., every 1-2 minutes).
• Data Analysis: The raw time-series data is de-trended and cleaned. The CBT rhythm is often modeled using non-linear regression, such as a cosine fit (e.g., a cosinor model), to identify the timing of the temperature minimum (Tmin), a common phase marker.

At-Home Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) Protocol

The at-home DLMO protocol balances rigor with practicality for larger-scale studies [26].

• Kit Preparation & Participant Training: Participants receive a kit containing salivettes, a dim red light headlamp, and detailed instructions. Communication with the study team is maintained for support.
• Sample Collection: On the assay night, participants remain in dim light (<10-20 lux) starting 6 hours before their habitual bedtime. They provide saliva samples hourly (or every 30-60 minutes) beginning 6 hours before and ending 2 hours after their habitual bedtime, for a total of 8-9 samples.
• Sample Handling & Assay: Participants refrigerate or freeze samples immediately after collection. Samples are returned to the lab for analysis typically via radioimmunoassay (RIA) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
• Phase Calculation: DLMO is calculated from the resulting melatonin concentration time-series. The most common methods are an absolute threshold (e.g., 3 or 4 pg/mL) or a relative threshold (e.g., 2 standard deviations above the mean of the first three low daytime values) [26].

Wearable-Based Distal Temperature & Actigraphy Protocol

This protocol leverages consumer or research-grade wearables for long-term, real-world circadian assessment.

• Device Deployment: Participants wear an actigraph on the wrist for a minimum of 7-14 days (and often longer for disorders like N24SWD) to capture sleep-wake cycles and wrist temperature [26].
• Data Preprocessing: Raw accelerometry and temperature data are processed. For actigraphy, algorithms estimate sleep onset, offset, and duration. Wrist temperature data is cleaned of artifacts.
• Phase & Amplitude Calculation: The 24-hour amplitude of the wrist temperature rhythm is calculated. Phase can be estimated by identifying the time of the temperature maximum during the sleep period. Advanced mathematical models, such as the one powering predictDLMO.com, integrate actigraphy-derived light exposure and activity data to predict the DLMO phase from the wearable data streams [26].

Analytical Frameworks for Time-Series Synchronization

Once time-series data for multiple phase markers are collected, sophisticated analytical frameworks are required to synchronize, align, and extract meaningful phase relationships.

Dynamic Frequency Selection and Multi-Scale Feature Extraction

In neurological applications like EEG analysis, frameworks such as the Adaptive Multi-Scale Phase-Aware Fusion Network (AMS-PAFN) have been developed to handle complex biosignals [58]. This framework is highly relevant to circadian data analysis due to its focus on dynamic spectral characteristics and phase alignment.

• Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS): This module uses a learnable spectral filtering process, employing techniques like Gumbel-SoftMax, to adaptively enhance frequency bands most relevant to the signal of interest (e.g., specific EEG rhythms or circadian harmonics) while suppressing irrelevant noise [58].
• Multi-Scale Feature Extraction (MCFE): This component uses hierarchical downsampling to capture both macro-rhythmic patterns (e.g., the overall 24-hour waveform) and micro-transient features (e.g., sharp onset events). A multi-head attention mechanism then establishes dynamic mappings across these different temporal scales [58].
• Multi-Scale Phase-Aware Fusion (MCPA): This is a critical synchronization module. It addresses the temporal alignment issue across different branches of a multi-scale network by assigning channel weights to features, thereby enhancing those that are synchronized with key physiological waveforms (like the melatonin rise or temperature decline) and suppressing asynchronous noise [58].

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow of this analytical framework.

Distribution-Aware Alignment for Forecasting

Another powerful approach for time-series analysis is distribution-aware alignment, which aims to bridge the distributional gap between input histories and future targets [59]. In the context of phase marker validation:

• Principle: This method, exemplified by frameworks like TimaAlign, explicitly aligns the statistical distributions of past (input) and future (target) representations in a latent space. This corrects for frequency mismatches and non-stationarities that often exist between different phases of a biological cycle or between different measurement modalities [59].
• Application to Phase Markers: When validating a new marker (e.g., wrist temperature) against a gold standard (e.g., DLMO), distribution-aware alignment can help synchronize their time-series by ensuring the model learns a shared representation where their phase relationships are consistent and predictable, thereby improving the accuracy of cross-modal prediction.

Phase Synchronization and Criticality Analysis

Moving beyond simple phase estimation, advanced analyses can probe the stability and dynamic properties of synchronization between different biological oscillators.

• Phase Synchronization Fluctuations: This framework characterizes the moment-to-moment fluctuations in phase synchrony between two signals (e.g., cortisol and melatonin rhythms) [60].
• Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA): This technique is used to detect Long-Range Temporal Correlations (LRTCs) in the rate of change of the phase difference between two signals. The presence of LRTCs, indicated by a power-law scaling exponent, suggests the system is operating near a critical state, which may maximize its dynamic range of information processing and readiness to respond to change [60]. This can provide insights into the overall robustness and stability of an individual's circadian system.

The following diagram outlines the key methodological components for analyzing phase synchronization criticality.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Successful execution of phase marker identification and validation studies requires a suite of reliable tools and reagents. The following table details key solutions for the featured experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Circadian Phase Marker Studies

Item	Function/Application	Key Characteristics & Examples
Actigraphy Watches	Objective, long-term monitoring of sleep-wake cycles and ambulatory temperature.	Research-grade (e.g., Actiwatch Spectrum Plus) or validated consumer wearables (e.g., Fitbit, Apple Watch); must measure motion and ideally skin temperature [26].
Salivary Melatonin Kit	At-home collection of saliva for subsequent DLMO analysis.	Includes salivettes, dim red light source, detailed protocol, and cold storage for sample preservation [26].
Melatonin Immunoassay	Quantification of melatonin concentration from saliva samples.	Radioimmunoassay (RIA) or Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA); require high sensitivity for low daytime levels (e.g., detection threshold of 1-2 pg/mL) [26].
Telemetric Temperature Pill	Minimally invasive measurement of Core Body Temperature (CBT).	Ingestible sensor that transmits data to an external receiver; essential for laboratory-based unmasking protocols.
Dynamic Graph Modeling Tools	Modeling spatial-temporal interactions in multi-system biology (e.g., neuro-circadian networks).	Software/libraries (e.g., Python with PyTorch) for implementing Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) to model dependencies between different biological nodes or regions [61].
Signal Processing Software	For time-series decomposition, filtering, and phase analysis.	Platforms like MATLAB or Python (SciPy, NumPy) used for applying FFT, bandpass filtering, and Hilbert transform to extract instantaneous phase [58] [60].

The comparative analysis of experimental data and methodologies reveals a clear trajectory in phase marker identification towards decentralized, multi-modal, and computationally sophisticated approaches. While core body temperature remains a foundational physiological signal, its measurement is being supplemented and, in some contexts, supplanted by the practical advantages of distal temperature monitoring and the analytical power of at-home DLMO. The critical validation of these markers against each other is no longer solely reliant on simple correlation but is increasingly powered by advanced analytical frameworks like adaptive multi-scale feature extraction, distribution-aware alignment, and criticality analysis. These tools allow researchers to move beyond static phase estimation and begin to model the dynamic stability and synchronization of the entire circadian system. For the drug development professional, this evolution offers the promise of more sensitive and granular endpoints for clinical trials, potentially identifying sub-populations of patients with specific circadian pathologies. As these tools continue to mature and become more accessible, they will undoubtedly deepen our understanding of circadian biology and enhance our ability to translate this knowledge into effective therapies.

Overcoming Practical Challenges: Optimizing Protocol Fidelity and Data Quality

Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) serves as the gold standard marker for assessing the phase of the human circadian pacemaker. Its accurate measurement is crucial for diagnosing circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, optimizing treatment timing for conditions like delayed sleep-wake phase disorder (DSWPD), and researching circadian misalignment in mood disorders. However, reliable DLMO determination faces significant methodological challenges related to light leakage, participant compliance, and assay variability. This guide objectively compares protocol performances and pitfalls by synthesizing data from validation studies, focusing on the context of validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research—another fundamental circadian rhythm. We provide structured experimental data, detailed methodologies, and resource toolkits to assist researchers in implementing robust DLMO assessments.

The circadian rhythm of melatonin secretion, governed by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), is a defining feature of the endogenous oscillatory pacemaker [62]. Within this rhythmic profile, the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) represents the most accurate and practical marker for assessing circadian phase in humans [62]. Its clinical and research utility is broad, enabling the diagnosis of circadian rhythm sleep disorders, phase-typing in mood disorders, and determining optimal timing for chronobiological treatments like bright light therapy or exogenous melatonin administration [62].

The validity of any circadian study, however, depends fundamentally on the rigor of its DLMO protocol. Inaccurate phase assessment can lead to misdiagnosis or treatment administered at an incorrect biological time, potentially exacerbating circadian misalignment [4]. This paper examines the three most common and critical pitfalls:

• Light Leakage: Inadequate control of ambient light, leading to melatonin suppression and a falsely delayed DLMO.
• Participant Compliance: Errors in sample timing or collection procedures.
• Assay Variability: Inconsistencies in the sensitivity, specificity, and analysis methods of melatonin assays.

Furthermore, we frame this discussion within the broader objective of validating DLMO protocols against other circadian markers, notably the core body temperature (CBT) minimum. As these markers reflect the same underlying pacemaker, a strong correlation between them, when measured rigorously, reinforces the validity of the DLMO methodology [3].

Pitfall 1: Light Leakage and Environmental Control

Light is the primary Zeitgeber for the human circadian system. Even relatively dim light, if bright enough, can suppress melatonin production and delay the observed DLMO, compromising the accuracy of the phase assessment.

Experimental Data on Light Exposure

The following table summarizes findings from studies that objectively monitored light exposure during home-based DLMO protocols.

Table 1: Impact of Light Exposure on Home DLMO Assessments

Study Population	Light Monitoring Method	Key Findings on Light Exposure	Effect on DLMO
Adults with DSWPD [63]	Photosensor worn on clothing	66% of participants received at least one >50 lux epoch; but on average for only 1.5% of the sampling period.	Home DLMOs were highly correlated with lab DLMOs (r=0.93), occurring only 10.2 minutes earlier on average.
Healthy Adults [64]	Photosensor worn on clothing	Most participants had some light >50 lux, but on average for <9 minutes during the 8.5-hour protocol.	No significant difference between home and lab DLMOs; home DLMOs occurred 9.6 minutes earlier on average.
Pediatric Chronic Pain & Healthy Controls [43]	VWR Digital Luxmeter; actigraphy watch	Protocol included objective light monitoring and blue light-blocking glasses as a protective measure.	DLMO was successfully determined in 8 of 12 participants, demonstrating feasibility.

Protocols for Mitigating Light Leakage

• Objective Monitoring: Relying on participant self-report of light exposure is unreliable [64]. Studies validating home kits successfully use objective photosensors pinned to the outermost clothing to measure light exposure at the participant's line of sight in 30-second epochs [64] [43] [63]. Data is later reviewed to flag violations.
• Practical Safeguards: Validation protocols often provide participants with:
  • A low-wattage lamp or nightlight to illuminate the sampling area.
  • Blue light-blocking glasses to be worn if they must briefly enter a brighter room or use a digital device [43].
  • Pre-shipment kit testing to ensure all equipment, like light meters, is functioning correctly [43].
• Defining Thresholds: While absolute thresholds can vary, < 50 lux is a commonly used and validated cutoff for "dim light" during home sampling [64] [63]. Researchers should explicitly state and justify their chosen lux threshold.

Relationship to Core Body Temperature Rhythm

The phase relationship between DLMO and CBT minimum is a key metric of internal synchrony. Studies have found that a longer interval between DLMO and CBTmin is correlated with greater depression and anhedonia scores in patients with Major Depressive Disorder [3]. Light leakage that artificially delays DLMO would distort this phase angle, leading to incorrect conclusions about circadian misalignment. Therefore, rigorous light control is essential not only for measuring DLMO accurately in isolation but also for correctly defining its phase relationship with other physiological rhythms like CBT.

Pitfall 2: Participant Compliance and Sampling Errors

Unsupervised home sampling introduces the risk of errors in the timing and handling of saliva samples, which can invalidate the resulting DLMO curve.

Experimental Data on Compliance

The following table summarizes compliance outcomes from studies using objective monitoring.

Table 2: Participant Compliance in Unsupervised DLMO Protocols

Study Population	Compliance Monitoring Method	Key Findings on Compliance	DLMO Success Rate
Adults with DSWPD [63]	Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) cap on saliva tube vial	56% collected every sample within ±5 minutes of the scheduled time.	83% of home DLMOs were deemed accurate and unaffected by light/sampling errors.
Healthy Adults [64]	Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) cap	Most participants collected every sample within ±5 minutes of the schedule.	92% of home DLMOs were not affected by light or sampling errors.
Adults with Sleep Complaints [65]	Self-reported sample log (no objective monitoring)	N/A. One participant appeared to take samples out of order, highlighting the risk of relying on self-report.	At-home DLMO determination was successful in 62.5% of participants using a fixed threshold.

Protocols for Maximizing Compliance

• Objective Timing Monitoring: The use of MEMS caps, which electronically record the time of each vial opening, is the gold standard for verifying sample timing [64] [43] [63]. This objective data is crucial for identifying and excluding non-compliant samples.
• Kit Design to Reduce Errors: Successful home kits include features to minimize human error:
  • Pre-printed, chronologically ordered labels prevent mislabeling [64].
  • Clear, illustrated instruction manuals guide participants through the process [43].
  • A dedicated "collection bottle" with the MEMS cap holds all the salivettes, simplifying the process [64].
• Participant Support and Scheduling: Providing a direct contact for questions, allowing participants to choose a collection night that fits their schedule (e.g., avoiding Monday after a weekend of social jet lag), and using a fixed, personalized collection schedule based on their own sleep diary data all improve adherence [43].

Pitfall 3: Assay Variability and DLMO Calculation

The final major pitfall lies in the biochemical analysis and the algorithm used to determine the DLMO from the raw melatonin concentration data.

DLMO Calculation Methods

The choice of threshold method can significantly impact the calculated DLMO, especially for individuals who are "low secretors" of melatonin.

Table 3: Comparison of DLMO Calculation Methods

Calculation Method	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages
Fixed Threshold	DLMO is the time when melatonin concentration crosses a pre-defined absolute value (e.g., 3 pg/mL or 4 pg/mL).	Simple, straightforward to calculate.	Misses DLMO in low secretors (e.g., some older adults) whose melatonin may never reach the threshold; may be inaccurate for individuals with high daytime baselines.
Relative Threshold (3k Method)	The threshold is set at 2 standard deviations above the mean of the first three low daytime samples.	Personalized to the individual's baseline; can detect onset in low secretors; recommended by leading labs [40].	Requires multiple baseline samples; more complex calculation.

Assay Specifications and Reagent Solutions

The performance of the salivary melatonin immunoassay is foundational. Key specifications for a reliable assay include [40]:

• High Sensitivity: Required to detect the low pg/mL concentrations typical of saliva. An assay with a sensitivity of < 2 pg/mL is essential.
• No Extraction Needed: A direct assay protocol without a pre-extraction step saves time, labor, and cost.
• Validation for Saliva: The assay must be specifically validated for use with saliva samples, as matrix effects can interfere.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Salivary Melatonin Analysis

Reagent / Tool	Function in DLMO Protocol	Key Considerations for Researchers
Salivary Melatonin ELISA Kit	Quantifies melatonin concentration in saliva samples.	Select a kit with high sensitivity (<2 pg/mL), validated for saliva, and without an extraction step. Example: Salimetrics Melatonin Assay [40].
Salivettes	Sterile cotton swabs for passive saliva collection.	Use untreated polyester/polyethylene swabs; avoid citric acid-treated swabs as they can interfere with assays.
MEMS Cap	Electronic monitoring device that records the time of sample vial opening.	Critical for objective compliance data on sample timing.
Portable Lux Meter	Objectively measures ambient light levels at the participant's point of gaze.	Necessary for verifying adherence to dim-light conditions.

Correlation with Core Body Temperature

The choice of assay and calculation method can influence the observed phase relationship between DLMO and CBTmin. Using an insufficiently sensitive assay or an inappropriate threshold could fail to detect a true DLMO in a low secretor, making it appear that their melatonin rhythm is absent or dramatically delayed relative to their CBT rhythm. Consistent and validated analytical methods are therefore critical for studies investigating the coupling or uncoupling of different circadian rhythms.

Integrated Experimental Workflow

The diagram below illustrates a robust, integrated workflow for a home DLMO protocol that incorporates strategies to mitigate the three major pitfalls discussed.

Diagram Title: Integrated DLMO Protocol Workflow

Accurate measurement of Dim Light Melatonin Onset is achievable outside the laboratory, but it requires meticulous attention to protocol design and execution. The convergence of evidence from multiple validation studies indicates that the primary pitfalls—light leakage, participant non-compliance, and assay variability—can be effectively mitigated through:

• The objective monitoring of light exposure and sample timing.
• The use of well-designed home kits and participant support systems to maximize compliance.
• The selection of high-sensitivity assays and the application of personalized relative thresholds (e.g., the 3k method) for DLMO calculation.

When these rigorous protocols are employed, home DLMO shows excellent agreement with laboratory measurements, with mean differences typically under 15 minutes [64] [63]. This level of accuracy is sufficient for most clinical and research applications, including the critical task of validating DLMO as a phase marker against the core body temperature rhythm. By adhering to these best practices, researchers and clinicians can leverage the convenience and ecological validity of home-based assessments without compromising scientific rigor.

Accurate assessment of the endogenous circadian rhythm is fundamental to advancing our understanding of sleep disorders, metabolic health, and drug chronotherapeutics. Core Body Temperature (CBT) serves as a key physiological marker for tracking central circadian timing, typically through identifying the circadian-related CBT minimum time (Tmin). However, a significant challenge in CBT analysis stems from non-circadian masking effects—confounding influences on temperature regulation from sleep, wakefulness, physical activity, and posture changes that obscure the true endogenous circadian signal. Traditionally, researchers have applied cosine-model fits to CBT data, but these simplified approaches often fail to adequately account for substantial masking effects, potentially leading to biased estimates of circadian phase and amplitude [66] [67]. This methodological limitation becomes particularly critical when validating CBT against the gold-standard circadian marker, Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO), as inaccurate demasking can compromise correlation analyses and protocol validation.

The imperative to overcome these challenges has driven innovation in analytical techniques. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of traditional and novel methodologies for managing non-circadian influences in CBT data, offering researchers a framework for selecting optimal approaches based on specific experimental requirements and constraints.

Comparative Analysis of CBT Demasking Methodologies

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, performance metrics, and applications of two predominant approaches to handling masking effects in CBT analysis.

Table 1: Comparison of CBT Demasking Methodologies

Methodology Feature	Traditional Cosine-Model Fits	Novel Physiology-Grounded Generalized Additive Model
Core Approach	Applies cosine curve fits to measured CBT data	Uses physiology-guided generalized additive models to separate influences [66] [19]
Handling of Masking Effects	Does not adequately account for substantial masking from activity/sleep [67]	Explicitly models circadian + non-circadian effects of sleep, wake, activity [19]
Model Fit to CBT Data (Pearson R)	0.81 [95% CI: 0.55-0.93] [66]	0.90 [95% CI: 0.83-0.96] [66] [19]
Tmin Estimation Error	1.4 [1.1 to 1.7] hours vs. measured [66]	0.2 [-0.5, 0.3] hours vs. measured [66] [67]
Sleep-Related Bias	Bias towards earlier Tmin estimate [66]	Removes sleep-related bias [19]
Experimental Validation	Compared against measured circadian Tmin during extended wake [66]	Validated during extended wake period without sleep [19]
Primary Application	Basic rhythm analysis in controlled settings	Enhanced precision for circadian timing in complex/ambulatory settings [66]

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Validation Paradigms

Protocol for Novel Physiology-Grounded CBT Demasking

The validated experimental protocol for the novel demasking approach involves rigorous laboratory control and specialized equipment:

• Participant Profile: 33 healthy participants (mean age 32 ± 13 years) [66] [67]
• Study Duration: 39-hour in-laboratory protocol [19]
• Sleep-Wake Schedule: Initial overnight sleep period followed by an extended wake period [66]
• CBT Measurement: Data collected at 30-second intervals using ingestible capsules [66] [67]
• Control Conditions: The design captures CBT during both baseline sleep and extended wake (without sleep), enabling model validation [19]
• Modeling Technique: Physiology-guided generalized additive models model the combined influence of circadian and non-circadian factors (sleep, wake, activity) on CBT [66]

This protocol specifically enables the separation of circadian from non-circadian effects by including a wake-only period that removes sleep-specific masking, thereby providing a ground truth reference for validating the model's Tmin estimates.

DLMO Validation Protocols for Circadian Phase Assessment

DLMO assessment serves as the gold standard for validating circadian phase estimates derived from CBT. Contemporary research has developed less burdensome home-based protocols without sacrificing reliability:

• Participant Preparation: Exclusion of confounding medications (beta-blockers, hypnotics, NSAIDs, melatonin >1/week); no time zone crossing (>1) or shift work in prior weeks [41]
• Sample Collection: Sequential saliva sampling every 30-60 minutes throughout evening/early night under dim light conditions (<10-15 lux) to prevent melatonin suppression [41]
• DLMO Calculation: Threshold-based determination using either:
  • Standardized threshold: 3-4 pg/mL [41]
  • Individualized threshold: Based on participant's peak melatonin concentration [41]
• Phase Angle Calculation: Derived from the interval between DLMO and Sleep Onset Timing (SOT) [41]
• SOT Assessment: Determined via 7-day or 3-day actigraphy monitoring or sleep diaries [41]

Home-based DLMO has demonstrated high feasibility with detection rates of 98.2% using individualized thresholds and 89.6% using standardized thresholds, even in specialized populations such as individuals with obesity [41].

Diagram: Integrated Workflow for CBT-DLMO Validation. This workflow illustrates the parallel data collection and convergent validation approach for correlating CBT-derived Tmin with the gold-standard DLMO phase marker.

The Impact of External Factors on Circadian Measures

Display Technology Effects on Circadian Physiology

Emerging research indicates that electronic displays significantly influence circadian physiology through their effects on circadian photoreception:

• Experimental Design: 25-day study using 2×2 repeated-measures design assessing Circadian Stimulus (CS: low vs. high) and Correlated Color Temperature (CCT: 4500K vs. 7000K) [35]
• Circadian Outcomes: Low CS displays associated with:
  • Earlier timing of core body temperature minimum (Tmin) [35]
  • Earlier dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) [35]
  • Reduced cortisol concentrations [35]
  • Improved subjective sleep quality [35]
• Metric Validation: CS demonstrated stronger correlation with circadian outcomes than Equivalent Melanopic Lux (EML), Melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance (EDI), or Circadian Light [35]
• Visual Comfort: Lower CCT displays (4500K) subjectively perceived as more comfortable and conducive to superior sleep quality [35]

These findings highlight the importance of controlling light exposure, particularly from electronic devices, during circadian studies to minimize exogenous masking of endogenous rhythms.

Essential Research Toolkit for Circadian Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Equipment for Circadian Protocols

Item	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Ingestible CBT Capsules	High-resolution (30-s intervals) core body temperature monitoring [66]	Continuous CBT measurement during 39-h lab protocols [19]
Actigraphy Watches	Objective sleep-wake monitoring and sleep onset timing determination [41]	7-day/3-day sleep pattern assessment before DLMO [41]
Saliva Collection Kits	Melatonin sampling for DLMO determination [41]	Home-based evening saliva collection every 30-60 min [41]
Dim Light Apparatus	Maintaining <10-15 lux lighting to prevent melatonin suppression [41]	Creating appropriate conditions for DLMO assessment [41]
Body Composition Analyzer	Measuring adiposity, metabolic parameters [41]	Assessing correlation between BMI and circadian phase [41]
Standardized DLMO Thresholds	Calculating melatonin onset (3-4 pg/mL) [41]	Objective circadian phase marker for validation [41]

Diagram: Sources and Resolution of Masking Effects. This diagram illustrates how multiple non-circadian factors converge to mask the endogenous circadian signal in CBT measurements, and how specialized algorithms work to extract the true circadian component.

The advancement of CBT demasking methodologies represents a significant leap forward for circadian research validation protocols. The novel physiology-grounded generalized additive model demonstrates clear superiority over traditional cosine fits, with enhanced model accuracy and significantly improved Tmin estimation precision. For researchers validating DLMO protocols against CBT measures, this improved demasking capacity is critical for obtaining reliable phase relationships between these circadian markers. Furthermore, the concurrent development of robust home-based DLMO assessment protocols enables more feasible validation studies across diverse populations, including clinical groups such as individuals with obesity who were previously underrepresented in circadian research. By implementing these refined methodologies, researchers can achieve more accurate characterization of circadian phase, ultimately strengthening the validity of studies examining circadian disruption in health, disease, and therapeutic interventions.

Accurately determining an individual's circadian phase is fundamental to research in chronobiology, sleep disorders, and drug development. The dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) derived from serial saliva sampling and core body temperature (CBTmin) minimum are considered gold-standard biomarkers for assessing the timing of the central circadian clock [8] [4]. However, the rigorous protocols required for these measurements create significant participant burden, potentially impacting feasibility, recruitment, and data quality in clinical trials. This creates a critical tension for researchers: how to balance the scientific rigor of invasive, laboratory-based protocols with the practical need for tolerable, feasible methods suitable for larger or less controlled studies. This guide objectively compares the performance of established and emerging methodologies for circadian phase assessment, focusing specifically on their respective participant burdens and the experimental data supporting their feasibility and accuracy.

Gold-Standard Protocols: DLMO and Core Body Temperature

The most direct methods for circadian phase assessment involve measuring physiological biomarkers under controlled conditions.

• DLMO Protocol: The DLMO protocol requires participants to provide serial saliva samples every 30-60 minutes in the hours before their habitual bedtime, under dim light conditions (<10-30 lux) [4]. Samples are subsequently assayed for melatonin concentration. The protocol is typically conducted in a laboratory setting to control light exposure, though home collection kits are also used.
• Core Body Temperature Protocol: The circadian minimum of core body temperature (CBTmin) is another reliable phase marker. Gold-standard measurement has historically required invasive methods, such as rectal thermometry, with sensors typically placed 10 cm beyond the anal sphincter to obtain valid readings [68]. Data must be collected continuously over at least 24 hours to reliably identify the temperature nadir.

The table below summarizes the key characteristics and burdens associated with these gold-standard methods.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Gold-Standard Circadian Phase Assessment Protocols

Feature	DLMO (Saliva)	Core Body Temperature (CBTmin)
Biomarker	Melatonin onset	Temperature rhythm minimum
Primary Burden	Serial sampling, time commitment, dim light restriction	Invasiveness of rectal probe, discomfort, privacy concerns
Typical Setting	Lab or home	Lab or home (with significant discomfort)
Measurement Duration	4-8 hours (evening)	24+ hours (continuous)
Key Feasibility Data	High completion rates (~92%) in home-based studies [69]	Considered highly burdensome; limits long-term use [68]
Noted Challenges	Compliance with dim light, cost of assays	Poor tolerability for many participants, not suitable for all populations

Experimental Data on Feasibility

A feasibility study on objective sleep and circadian measurement in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) provides concrete data on participant compliance. The study reported that 91.9% of participants successfully completed at-home saliva collection for DLMO analysis [69]. This high completion rate, even in a population experiencing active disease symptoms, demonstrates that the DLMO protocol can be successfully implemented in home environments with appropriate participant instruction and support.

Emerging Technologies and Lower-Burden Alternatives

Non-Invasive Core Body Temperature Sensors

Novel, non-invasive wearable sensors have been developed to mitigate the burden of traditional CBT measurement. Devices like the CORE sensor claim to measure core body temperature continuously from the skin surface using a thermal energy transfer sensor and a proprietary algorithm [68] [70].

• Validation Data: The manufacturer cites validation studies comparing the CORE sensor against ingested electronic pills (e-pills). They report a Mean Absolute Deviation of 0.21°C when monitoring fever, a level of accuracy they state is similar to that of an e-pill [70].
• Independent Evaluation: An independent study evaluated the CORE sensor against rectal thermometry and concluded it was "not a valid measure of core body temperature" when using their preferred accuracy threshold [68]. The manufacturer disputes this conclusion, arguing that the study used an inappropriate calculation method and reference standard (rectal thermometer instead of e-pill) [68].
• Feasibility Advantage: The primary advantage is dramatically reduced burden, enabling continuous, non-invasive monitoring in real-world settings over days or weeks, which is impractical with rectal probes [70].

Predictive Models from Ambulatory Data

Mathematical models that predict circadian phase from easily collected ambulatory data represent another low-burden alternative. These models use inputs like light exposure, activity (from actigraphy), and sleep timing to estimate DLMO.

• Performance Data: A study in Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder patients evaluated a dynamic model and a statistical model for predicting DLMO from ~7 days of sleep-wake and light data [4]. The statistical model predicted DLMO with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 57 minutes, accurately predicting to within ±1 hour in 75% of participants. The dynamic model performed similarly, with an RMSE of 68 minutes and ±1 hour accuracy in 58% of participants [4].
• Comparative Simplicity: Both models significantly outperformed the simple heuristic of subtracting 2 hours from actigraphically-derived bedtime, which had an RMSE of 129 minutes [4].
• Burden Reduction: This approach is far less burdensome, requiring only that participants wear an actigraph and potentially complete sleep diaries for several days, without the need for serial saliva sampling or laboratory confinement.

The following diagram illustrates the workflow and key decision points for selecting a circadian assessment strategy based on research needs and practical constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Circadian Phase Assessment

Item	Function in Research	Example Protocol/Context
Salivary Melatonin Assay Kits	To quantify melatonin concentration in saliva samples for determining DLMO.	Used in laboratory analysis of serial saliva samples collected in dim light [8] [4].
Portable Saliva Collection Kit	Allows participants to provide samples at home; includes cryotubes and low-light instructions.	Enables home-based DLMO studies, improving feasibility and ecological validity [69].
Wrist Actigraph	A wearable device that measures motor activity and light exposure to infer sleep-wake cycles and rest-activity rhythms.	Used for objective sleep measurement and as input data for statistical models predicting DLMO [69] [4] [71].
Non-Invasive Core Temperature Sensor	A wearable device that estimates core body temperature continuously from the skin surface.	Provides a less burdensome alternative to rectal probes for monitoring circadian temperature rhythms in field settings [68] [70].
Cosinor Analysis Software	A statistical package for fitting cosine curves to time-series data to derive circadian parameters (MESOR, amplitude, acrophase).	Used to analyze rest-activity rhythms from actigraphy or heart rate data, and to analyze core body temperature data [71].

The choice of a circadian assessment protocol involves a direct trade-off between scientific rigor and participant burden. Gold-standard methods like DLMO and invasive CBTmin offer high accuracy but are resource-intensive and demanding for participants, which can limit sample sizes and study settings. Emerging alternatives, including non-invasive sensors and predictive models, offer substantially lower burden and greater scalability, but come with compromises in accuracy or, in the case of some sensors, ongoing scientific debate about their validity. Researchers must strategically align their choice of method with the primary objectives of their study, giving careful consideration to the required level of precision, participant population, and practical constraints of the trial design.

Data Gaps and Artifact Correction in Long-Duration Physiological Recordings

Long-duration physiological recordings provide critical insights into circadian biology and its implications for cardiovascular health, neurodegenerative diseases, and drug development. However, these recordings are frequently compromised by significant data gaps and pervasive artifacts that can obscure true physiological signals and lead to erroneous scientific conclusions. Within circadian research, a pressing challenge lies in validating non-invasive circadian phase markers, such as dim light melatonin onset (DLMO), against established but more invasive measures like core body temperature (CBT) minimum. This validation is complicated by the fact that standard artifact correction methods developed for healthy populations may perform differently in clinical groups with circadian rhythm disorders, such as Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD). This guide objectively compares current methodologies for addressing data quality issues, providing researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate tools based on empirical performance data across different recording modalities and participant populations.

Comparative Analysis of Data Gaps and Correction Methodologies

Data Gaps in Physiological Monitoring

Table 1: Common Data Gaps in Long-Duration Physiological Recordings

Recording Modality	Primary Gap Types	Typical Causes	Impact on Circadian Analysis
Commercial Wearables [72]	Missing physiological segments, Self-reported label inaccuracy	User compliance issues, Device removal, Sensor displacement	Compromised baseline calculation, Misalignment between physiological events and labels
fMRI [73]	Physiological noise contamination, Signal dropouts	Cardiorespiratory cycles, Subject movement, Scanner artifacts	Obscured neural BOLD signal, Spurious functional connectivity patterns
EEG/fMRI [74]	Gradient artifacts, Ballistocardiographic artifacts	MRI gradient switching, Cardiac-induced electrode movement	EEG signal overwhelmed by noise (10-100x signal amplitude), Masked neural oscillations
Circadian Phase Prediction [4]	Sparse phase measurements, Limited light exposure data	Cost/inconvenience of DLMO assessment, Variable environmental monitoring	Inaccurate phase predictions, Limited clinical applicability for DSWPD diagnosis

Artifact Correction Performance Comparison

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Artifact Correction Methods

Correction Method	Application Domain	Key Performance Metrics	Limitations & Challenges
PhysIO Toolbox [75]	fMRI physiological noise	Robust peak detection outperforms vendor-provided methods; Full automation for group studies	Requires peripheral physiological recordings; Model-based approaches need external data
FACET Toolbox [74]	EEG/fMRI artifacts	No difference from FASTR algorithm in gradient artifact correction; ~3x reduced memory requirements	Limited to specific artifact types; Requires specialized expertise for configuration
Baseline Correction + Label Correction [72]	Wearable data for infection detection	COVID-19 detection: ROC AUC 0.777 (vs. 0.725 uncorrected); Fever detection: ROC AUC 0.994	Label correction on test set not feasible in real-time; Inter-/intra-subject variability persists
Dynamic Circadian Model (Trained on DSWPD) [4]	DLMO prediction in DSWPD	RMSE: 68 min; ±1 h accuracy: 58% of participants; ±2 h accuracy: 95%	Underestimates population variability (regression toward mean)
Statistical Circadian Model [4]	DLMO prediction in DSWPD	RMSE: 57 min; ±1 h accuracy: 75% of participants; ±2 h accuracy: 96%	Requires population-specific training data

Experimental Protocols for Method Validation

Baseline Correction Algorithm:

• Data Collection: Collect continuous physiological data (heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature) from commercial wearables during sleep periods.
• Healthy State Definition: Establish a baseline window of historical data representing healthy states for each participant.
• Feature Extraction: Derive features from raw data streams, including respiration rate calculated from interbeat intervals.
• Baseline Adjustment: Apply baseline correction to normalize physiological changes relative to individual healthy states.
• Label Correction: Implement algorithm to correct mis-reported symptom labels from participant self-reports.
• Model Training: Utilize XGBoost models with corrected features and labels for physiological event detection.

Validation Approach: The protocol was validated on one of the largest available datasets, comprising 8,000+ participants and 1.3+ million hours of wearable data from Oura smart rings. Performance was measured using ROC AUC, precision-recall AUC, and early detection timing for COVID-19 infection.

PhysIO Toolbox Implementation:

• Physiological Recording: Acquire peripheral measurements (ECG, respiratory belt) concurrently with fMRI acquisition.
• Preprocessing: Process physiological recordings using robust, iterative peak detection algorithms.
• Noise Modeling: Implement RETROICOR, respiratory volume per time (RVT), and heart rate variability (HRV) models to characterize physiological noise.
• GLM Regressor Creation: Generate noise regressors for inclusion in general linear model analysis.
• Performance Assessment: Automatically evaluate correction efficacy using multiple performance indicators.

Experimental Considerations: The protocol addresses three major noise sources: low-frequency fluctuations in breathing depth and rate (~0.03 Hz), low-frequency heart rate variations (~0.04 Hz), high-frequency respiratory-related motion (~0.3 Hz), and cardiac pulsatility (~1 Hz). These corrections are particularly crucial for resting-state fMRI studies where physiological fluctuations overlap with the frequency range of neural BOLD signals (0.01-0.15 Hz).

DLMO Prediction in DSWPD Patients:

• Participant Recruitment: 154 clinically diagnosed DSWPD patients (age 16-64 years).
• Ambulatory Monitoring: Collect ~7 days of sleep-wake and light exposure data using actigraphy.
• Phase Marker Assessment: Measure DLMO via salivary melatonin samples under dim light conditions.
• Model Comparison: Evaluate two prediction approaches:
  • Dynamic Model: Jewett-Kronauer model with parameters optimized for DSWPD (τ=24.4 h, k=0.45, G=37)
  • Statistical Model: Multiple linear regression using light exposure during phase delay/advance portions of phase response curve, sleep timing, and demographic variables
• Validation Metrics: Calculate root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error, and percentage of predictions within ±1 h and ±2 h of actual DLMO.

Clinical Application: The protocol further tested clinical utility by using predicted DLMO to classify participants as circadian or non-circadian DSWPD, defined by whether DLMO occurred within 30 minutes of desired bedtime.

Visualization of Methodologies and Relationships

Figure 1: Methodological Framework for Physiological Data Correction and Validation. This diagram illustrates the relationship between data challenges, correction methodologies, implementation tools, and their validation context within circadian research, particularly focusing on DLMO and core body temperature measurements.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Tools for Physiological Data Correction

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Application Context	Performance Characteristics
PhysIO Toolbox [75]	Modeling physiological noise in fMRI	fMRI studies requiring clean BOLD signal	Robust peak detection; Supports RETROICOR, RVT/HRV models; Full automation for group studies
FACET Toolbox [74]	Correcting EEG artifacts in fMRI environment	Concurrent EEG/fMRI studies	Modular correction framework; Implements AAS, FASTR algorithms; 3x memory efficiency vs. FASTR
Oura Ring Gen2 [72]	Continuous physiological monitoring	Long-term circadian/health tracking	Measures HR, HRV, skin temperature, sleep; Data suitable for baseline correction algorithms
Jewett-Kronauer Model [4]	Predicting circadian phase from light exposure	Circadian rhythm disorder assessment	Dynamic model; RMSE: 68 min for DLMO prediction in DSWPD after parameter optimization
XGBoost Algorithm [72]	Machine learning for event detection	Wearable data analysis for infection detection	Handles heterogeneous wearable features; Enables early detection with corrected baselines/labels

The correction of data gaps and artifacts in long-duration physiological recordings requires specialized approaches tailored to specific recording modalities and research objectives. For validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research, each methodology offers distinct advantages: model-based fMRI correction enables precise mapping of neural correlates, wearable data correction facilitates large-scale longitudinal monitoring, and circadian prediction models provide non-invasive alternatives to direct phase measurement. The most effective research strategies will combine multiple correction approaches, acknowledging that methods validated in healthy populations may require parameter optimization for clinical groups with circadian rhythm disorders. As physiological monitoring technologies continue to evolve, the development of standardized correction protocols will be essential for advancing circadian biology and its applications in drug development and personalized medicine.

Leveraging Actigraphy and Light Data to Contextualize and Interpret Phase Estimates

In the fields of circadian biology and clinical sleep research, accurate estimation of an individual's circadian phase is paramount for both diagnosis and treatment. The gold standard for phase assessment, dim light melatonin onset (DLMO), is often resource-prohibitive for widespread use. Concurrently, research into core body temperature (Tcr) as a physiological circadian marker continues to evolve. This guide objectively compares the performance of various methods that leverage actigraphy and light data to estimate circadian phase, contextualizing their validation against both DLMO and core body temperature research. We summarize experimental data and methodologies to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a clear comparison of available tools and techniques.

Performance Data Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods

The following tables summarize the quantitative performance of various methods for predicting circadian phase, using either DLMO or core body temperature as the validation benchmark.

Table 1: Performance of Actigraphy/Light Models in Predicting DLMO

Population Studied	Model Type	Key Input Features	Performance against DLMO	Source
Fixed Night Shift Workers	Mathematical Model	Actigraphy & Light Data	Mean Absolute Error: 2.88 h; 76% within ±2 h; 91% within ±4 h	[76] [77]
Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD)	Dynamic Model	Light Data	RMSE: 68 min; 58% within ±1 h; 95% within ±2 h	[4]
Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD)	Statistical Regression Model	Light Data during delay/advance regions	RMSE: 57 min; 75% within ±1 h; 96% within ±2 h	[4]
College Students (Irregular Schedules)	Neural Network (Classification)	Actigraphy, Light, & Skin Temperature	Classification Accuracy: ~90%; Mean DLMO estimation error: ~1.3 h	[78]
Healthy/Day Workers	Actigraphy Sleep Timing Proxy	Sleep Timing on Non-workdays	Concordance with DLMO: ~0.35 (Lin's coefficient)	[76] [77]

Table 2: Performance of Non-Invasive Core Body Temperature Prediction Models

Model / Device	Key Input Features	Validation Method	Performance against Core Temperature	Source
Deep Learning (LTSF + Kalman Filter)	Heart Rate (HR) & 7-point Skin Temperature (Tsk)	Ingestible e-pill/Rectal Probe	RMSE: 0.09°C; 95% of errors within ±0.17°C	[79]
Deep Learning (LTSF + Kalman Filter)	Heart Rate (HR) only	Ingestible e-pill/Rectal Probe	95% of errors within ±0.41°C	[79]
CORE Wearable Sensor	Thermal Energy from Skin	e-pill (BodyCap) & Rectal Probe	Mean Absolute Deviation: 0.21°C (similar to e-pill tolerance)	[80]
Flexible Multi-Modal Device	Skin Temperature & Thermal Conductivity	Hot Plate Test (Simulated)	Deviation: < ±0.1°C (in skin-like material validation)	[81]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and critical appraisal, this section outlines the methodologies of key experiments cited in the comparison tables.

Actigraphy-Based DLMO Prediction in Shift Workers

• Objective: To validate a mathematical model that uses actigraphy and light data to predict DLMO in fixed night shift workers, a population with extreme circadian disruption [76] [77].
• Participants: 45 fixed night shift workers.
• Actigraphy Protocol: Participants wore wrist actigraphs for approximately 17 days prior to lab assessment. Devices collected continuous activity and light exposure data [77].
• DLMO Validation Protocol: Participants completed a 24-hour laboratory stay, providing hourly saliva samples under dim light conditions (<10 lux). DLMO was determined from the melatonin concentration time course [76] [77].
• Modeling & Analysis: Actigraphy data (light and movement) were processed and input into a mathematical model of the human circadian clock. Model-predicted phase was compared against the measured DLMO. The model's performance was also compared against using sleep timing on non-workdays as a simple DLMO proxy [77].

Comparison of DLMO Estimation Methods in DSWPD

• Objective: To evaluate and compare a dynamic model and a statistical regression model for predicting DLMO in patients with Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD) [4].
• Participants: 154 clinically diagnosed DSWPD patients.
• Protocol: Participants underwent ambulatory monitoring for approximately 7 days, collecting sleep-wake and light exposure data. DLMO was assessed under controlled conditions.
• Modeling & Analysis:
  • Dynamic Model: A modified Jewett-Kronauer limit cycle oscillator model used light data as input to predict the timing of the circadian pacemaker and thus DLMO [4].
  • Statistical Model: A multiple linear regression model was developed using light exposure during specific phase delay and phase advance portions of the circadian phase response curve, along with sleep timing and demographic variables [4].

Non-Invasive Core Temperature Prediction via Deep Learning

• Objective: To develop a non-invasive model for continuous core temperature (Tcr) prediction in individuals working in high-temperature environments [79].
• Participants: 13 participants in chamber experiments.
• Protocol: Experiments were conducted in environmental chambers with temperatures ranging from 34°C to 40°C. Participants' core temperature was measured invasively (e.g., via ingestible e-pill or rectal probe), while heart rate (HR) and skin temperature (Tsk) were monitored non-invasively.
• Modeling & Analysis: A deep learning model combining a Long-Term Sequence Forecasting (LTSF) model with a Kalman Filter (KF) was developed. The model was trained and tested using the monitored Tsk and HR data as inputs to predict the measured Tcr [79].

Methodological Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and data integration process for using actigraphy and light data to estimate circadian phase, as validated against gold-standard measures.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers aiming to implement these methodologies, the following table details key tools and their functions as identified in the cited literature.

Table 3: Key Research Tools for Circadian Phase Estimation Studies

Tool / Solution	Primary Function	Example Use Cases	Key Features & Considerations
Research Actigraphs (e.g., Motionlogger, Act Trust)	Continuous, ambulatory monitoring of activity and light exposure.	Core device for collecting input data for DLMO prediction models [76] [82] [77].	Measures activity in PIM (Proportional Integrating Measure) mode; often includes light and temperature sensors.
Salivary Melatonin Kits	Collection and assay of saliva samples to determine DLMO in laboratory or field settings.	Gold-standard validation for circadian phase prediction models [76] [83] [4].	Requires collection under dim light (<10 lux); involves calculating onset via fixed threshold, dynamic threshold, or hockey stick methods [83].
Ingestible Core Temperature Pill (e.g., BodyCap)	Continuous, invasive measurement of core body temperature for validation.	Gold-standard for validating non-invasive Tcr prediction models in field studies [79] [80].	Costly single-use item; accuracy can be influenced by fluid intake and ingestion time.
Flexible Multi-Modal Sensor Patches	Non-invasive monitoring of skin temperature and thermal conductivity at multiple points.	Used in developing and validating novel heat-flow-based core temperature prediction devices [81].	Enables single-heat-flux method; designed for conformal attachment to skin to ensure accurate readings.
Data Processing Software (e.g., Action-W, Act Studio)	Downloading, visualizing, and scoring raw actigraphy data.	Essential for preprocessing steps before model input; used to generate activity and rest intervals [82] [84].	Software-specific algorithms can affect sleep and activity metrics; standardization procedures (e.g., RISE procedure) improve reproducibility [84].

The quantitative data and methodological details presented in this guide demonstrate that leveraging actigraphy and light data provides a viable, non-invasive alternative for estimating circadian phase, with performance varying significantly based on the model used and the population studied. While mathematical models show promise in shift workers, statistical and machine learning approaches can achieve higher precision in clinical populations like DSWPD. Simultaneously, advances in deep learning and flexible sensors are enabling increasingly accurate non-invasive prediction of core body temperature. When contextualizing phase estimates, researchers must carefully select the model and validation protocol that best aligns with their target population and the specific circadian marker of interest, whether it is DLMO or core temperature.

Statistical Validation and Clinical Utility: Comparing Biomarkers Across Populations and Contexts

In biomedical research, particularly in the validation of new measurement protocols, establishing the agreement between two methods is a critical statistical task. Whether comparing a novel device to a gold standard or assessing the relationship between different physiological markers, researchers must select analytical techniques that accurately quantify the level of concordance. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of three fundamental statistical approaches used in method comparison studies: correlation analysis, Bland-Altman plots, and phase difference distribution analysis. Within the specific context of validating Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) protocols against core body temperature research—two crucial circadian rhythm markers—the selection of appropriate statistical methods becomes paramount for drawing accurate conclusions about their relationship and potential interchangeability in clinical and research settings.

Each method offers distinct advantages and limitations for different experimental scenarios. Correlation analysis measures the strength and direction of a relationship between two variables but does not assess agreement. Bland-Altman plots specifically quantify agreement between two measurement techniques by analyzing their differences. Phase difference distributions evaluate timing discrepancies between cyclical biological processes, making them particularly relevant for circadian rhythm research. Understanding the appropriate application, interpretation, and limitations of each method is essential for researchers validating new measurement techniques against established standards.

Theoretical Foundations of Agreement Statistics

Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis is one of the most widely utilized statistical techniques in biomedical research for assessing the relationship between two continuous variables. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) quantifies the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables, with values ranging from -1.0 (perfect negative correlation) to +1.0 (perfect positive correlation). The coefficient of determination (r²) represents the proportion of variance shared between the variables. Despite its popularity, correlation analysis has significant limitations for method comparison studies, as it measures association rather than agreement. Two methods can be perfectly correlated while consistently yielding different values, as correlation assesses how well measurements change together proportionally, not whether the actual values agree [85].

The statistical significance of a correlation coefficient (p-value) indicates the probability that the observed relationship occurred by chance, with p < 0.05 typically considered statistically significant. However, in method comparison studies, this significance test offers limited value, as any two methods designed to measure the same biological parameter are likely to demonstrate some degree of relationship, especially when samples cover a wide concentration range. A high correlation coefficient alone does not establish that two methods agree sufficiently for interchangeable use in clinical or research settings [85] [86].

Bland-Altman Analysis

Bland-Altman analysis, also known as the difference plot, was specifically developed to assess agreement between two quantitative measurement methods. Introduced by J. Martin Bland and Douglas G. Altman in 1983 and popularized in their 1986 Lancet paper, this approach quantifies agreement by calculating the mean difference between paired measurements (establishing bias) and constructing limits of agreement (LoA) within which 95% of the differences between the two methods fall [85] [87] [88].

The methodology involves plotting the differences between two paired measurements (A-B) against the average of these measurements ((A+B)/2). The mean difference (bias) indicates systematic deviation between methods, while the standard deviation of the differences determines the LoA (mean difference ± 1.96 × standard deviation). The resulting visualization enables researchers to assess both the magnitude and pattern of disagreements across the measurement range, identify proportional bias, and evaluate whether the agreement is clinically acceptable based on predetermined criteria [85] [87].

Unlike correlation analysis, Bland-Altman plots do not indicate whether agreement is sufficient for a specific purpose. Rather, they define the range of disagreements, allowing researchers to judge acceptability based on clinical requirements or biological considerations. This method has gained prominence across numerous fields including optometry, nutritional science, radiology, environmental sciences, surgery, medicine, veterinary medicine, engineering, and psychology due to its intuitive interpretation and practical utility [87].

Phase Difference Distribution Analysis

Phase difference distribution analysis represents a specialized statistical approach for evaluating timing discrepancies between cyclical biological processes, making it particularly relevant for circadian rhythm research. This methodology quantifies how the distribution of oscillatory phases differs between two trial groups or conditions at specific time and frequency points. In circadian research, this typically involves comparing phase angles of rhythmic variables such as DLMO and core body temperature rhythms [89].

Several statistical measures have been developed to evaluate phase opposition, including parametric tests like the circular Watson-Williams test (analogous to a t-test for circular data) and non-parametric measures such as the Phase Bifurcation Index (PBI), Phase Opposition Sum (POS), and Phase Opposition Product (POP). These measures generally involve combinations of inter-trial phase coherence (ITC) values for different trial groups, appropriately corrected to remove overall ITC. The underlying principle assumes that if phase influences trial outcome, then the ITC of each trial group should exceed the overall ITC [89].

The application of phase difference distribution analysis requires specific experimental design considerations, including temporally unpredictable stimulus onset to ensure sampling of truly ongoing brain activity rather than stimulus-evoked responses. The statistical power of different phase opposition measures varies depending on experimental factors such as the timing, frequency, and depth of oscillatory phase modulation; absolute and relative amplitudes of post-stimulus event-related potentials for different trial groups; and absolute and relative trial numbers for each group [89].

Comparative Analysis of Statistical Methods

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Agreement Assessment Methods

Feature	Correlation Analysis	Bland-Altman Plot	Phase Difference Analysis
Primary Purpose	Measure strength/direction of linear relationship	Quantify agreement between two measurement methods	Evaluate timing differences in cyclical processes
Key Outputs	Correlation coefficient (r), p-value, r²	Mean difference (bias), limits of agreement	Phase opposition measures, circular statistics
Data Requirements	Paired continuous measurements	Paired continuous measurements	Circular data (phases), multiple trials per condition
Assumptions	Linear relationship, normality, homoscedasticity	Normally distributed differences, adequate sample size	Uniform phase distribution at baseline, appropriate frequency selection
Interpretation Focus	How well variables change together	Range and pattern of differences between methods	Concentration of phases across experimental conditions
Limitations	Does not measure agreement; sensitive to range	Does not define acceptable agreement; assumes normal differences	Complex implementation; requires specialized circular statistics

Appropriate Applications and Limitations

Correlation analysis remains appropriate for initial exploratory analysis of relationship strength but should not be used as the sole method for assessing agreement between measurement techniques. Its value lies in identifying the degree of linear association, particularly during preliminary method development stages. However, the reliance on correlation coefficients alone for method comparison represents a fundamental misuse of the technique, as it cannot detect systematic biases between methods [85] [86].

Bland-Altman analysis represents the recommended approach for most method comparison studies involving continuous measurements, particularly when validating new measurement devices or techniques against established standards. Its strength lies in visualizing the magnitude and pattern of disagreements across the measurement range, identifying proportional bias (where differences change systematically with measurement magnitude), and providing clear metrics (bias and LoA) for clinical decision-making. The method's limitation lies in its inability to define what constitutes clinically acceptable agreement—this determination must be based on independent biological or clinical criteria [85] [87].

Phase difference distribution analysis serves a highly specialized role in evaluating timing relationships between cyclical biological processes. In circadian rhythm research, it enables quantification of phase angle differences between DLMO and core body temperature rhythms, providing insights into their temporal relationship and potential desynchronization in various clinical conditions. The method's complexity and requirement for specialized statistical approaches represent its primary limitations, though its specificity for timing analysis makes it invaluable for circadian research [89].

Sample Size Considerations

Appropriate sample size represents a critical consideration in agreement studies. For Bland-Altman analysis, historically limited formal guidance existed for sample size calculation, with early recommendations focusing on confidence interval width for limits of agreement. More recent methodologies, such as that proposed by Lu et al. (2016), provide statistical frameworks for power and sample size determination based on the distribution of measurement differences and predefined clinical agreement limits. These approaches explicitly incorporate Type II error control and provide more accurate sample size estimates for typical study designs targeting 80% power [87].

For phase difference distribution analysis, sample size requirements depend on multiple factors including the depth of phase modulation, effect size, number of permutations for non-parametric testing, and trial numbers per condition. Simulation studies suggest that concurrent use of multiple phase opposition measures (such as the parametric Watson-Williams test combined with a non-parametric test based on summing inter-trial coherence values) provides the most robust approach across varying experimental conditions [89].

Application in Circadian Rhythm Research

DLMO and Core Body Temperature Measurement Protocols

Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) represents a gold standard marker for circadian phase assessment, typically measured through serial saliva or blood samples collected under dim light conditions (<20 lux). The DLMO is determined as the time at which melatonin levels exceed a predetermined threshold, either absolute (e.g., 3-4 pg/mL) or relative (e.g., 2 standard deviations above the mean of baseline samples). The protocol requires strict environmental control and participant compliance to avoid light exposure that suppresses melatonin production [65].

Core body temperature measurement employs various methodologies with differing validity and practicality. Rectal temperature represents the most widely accepted valid measure during exercise and rest, while esophageal temperature and pulmonary artery catheters offer greater accuracy with increased invasiveness. Ingestible telemetry pills provide a practical alternative for field studies, though they present limitations including cost, gastrointestinal transit time, and potential contamination from food/fluid intake. Emerging non-invasive sensors such as the CORE device use heat flux technology and machine learning algorithms to estimate core temperature, though validation evidence varies across devices and conditions [90] [52].

Table 2: Comparison of Core Body Temperature Measurement Methods

Method	Validity	Practicality	Key Limitations
Pulmonary Artery Catheter	Gold standard	Low (requires medical supervision)	Highly invasive; limited to clinical settings
Esophageal Temperature	High	Moderate (requires trained personnel)	Uncomfortable for prolonged use
Rectal Temperature	High	Moderate	Socially unacceptable for continuous monitoring; displacement risk during movement
Ingestible Telemetry Pills	Moderate to High	Moderate	Cost (~50-80€ per pill); limited to gastrointestinal transit time (~24-36h)
CORE Sensor (Non-invasive)	Variable depending on conditions	High	Accuracy affected by air movement; requires validation for specific scenarios

Agreement Assessment in Circadian Rhythm Validation Studies

In circadian rhythm research, validating DLMO assessment protocols against core body temperature measurements requires careful consideration of statistical approaches. Bland-Altman analysis has been applied in studies comparing at-home versus in-laboratory DLMO assessment, demonstrating mean differences of approximately 37±19 minutes using an absolute threshold (3 pg/mL) and 54±36 minutes using a relative threshold (2 standard deviations above baseline mean) [65]. Similarly, validation studies of non-invasive core temperature sensors like the CORE device have employed Bland-Altman analysis to report limits of agreement with rectal temperature, with varying results depending on environmental conditions and participant characteristics [90] [52].

Phase difference distribution analysis offers particular value for investigating the temporal relationship between DLMO and core body temperature rhythms, quantifying their phase angle difference across various conditions such as sleep disorders, shift work, and time zone transitions. This approach enables researchers to determine whether these circadian markers maintain a consistent phase relationship or exhibit desynchronization in specific clinical populations or environmental conditions.

Diagram 1: Statistical Method Selection Pathway for Agreement Studies

Experimental Protocols for Method Comparison

Standardized Protocol for Device Validation Studies

Rigorous validation of new measurement devices against established standards requires carefully controlled experimental protocols. For core temperature sensor validation, participants typically undergo testing under various environmental conditions while wearing both the experimental device and reference standard (typically rectal sensor or ingestible pill). The protocol should specify:

• Participant Preparation: Standardized pre-test conditions including fasting status, hydration, avoidance of stimulants/depressants, and recent physical activity
• Sensor Placement: Precise positioning of experimental and reference devices according to manufacturer specifications
• Environmental Control: Regulation of ambient temperature, humidity, and air velocity appropriate to the validation scenario
• Data Collection: Synchronized recording from all devices at appropriate sampling frequencies
• Activity Protocol: Standardized exercise intensities or rest periods designed to elicit physiological responses across the expected measurement range

For example, in validation studies of the CORE sensor, participants performed steady-state cycling under different environmental conditions (19°C and 31°C) while core temperature was simultaneously measured using both the CORE sensor and a rectal reference sensor. This approach enabled assessment of device validity across a range of core temperatures and under different heat load conditions [90].

Protocol for DLMO and Core Temperature Phase Relationship Studies

Investigating the phase relationship between DLMO and core body temperature rhythms requires specialized protocols that account for the circadian nature of both variables:

• Participant Screening: Exclusion of individuals with circadian rhythm disorders, recent shift work or time zone travel, and use of medications affecting melatonin secretion or thermoregulation
• Standardization Conditions: Controlled light exposure, posture, activity, and nutritional intake for at least 24 hours prior to assessment
• Sampling Protocol: Frequent sampling of melatonin (saliva or blood) and continuous core temperature monitoring throughout the circadian cycle
• Environmental Control: Strict dim light conditions (<20 lux) during DLMO assessment, controlled room temperature, and minimization of external Zeitgebers
• Data Analysis: Determination of DLMO using consistent threshold criteria and calculation of core temperature rhythm phase using appropriate curve-fitting techniques

This rigorous approach enables reliable quantification of the phase angle difference between these two circadian markers, facilitating investigations into their relationship across different populations and conditions.

Research Reagent Solutions for Circadian Rhythm Studies

Table 3: Essential Materials for Circadian Rhythm Assessment Protocols

Research Reagent	Function	Application Notes
Salivary Melatonin Collection Kit	Sample collection for DLMO assessment	Use amber tubes or low-adhesion plastics to prevent melatonin degradation; exclude caffeine before sampling
Melatonin Assay Kit	Quantitative melatonin measurement	Radioimmunoassay (RIA) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with sensitivity ≤0.5 pg/mL
Rectal Temperature Probe	Gold standard core temperature reference	Medical-grade thermistor with accuracy ±0.1°C; insert 10-12cm beyond anal sphincter
Ingestible Telemetry Pill	Gastrointestinal temperature monitoring	Ingest 8-10h before data collection; verify signal transmission; avoid with certain medical conditions
Heat Flux Sensor (CORE)	Non-invasive core temperature estimation	Position on skin with good perfusion; accuracy affected by air movement and skin contact
Activity Monitor	Assessment of rest-activity cycles	Wrist-worn accelerometer with light sensor; minimum 7-day recording for circadian analysis
Environmental Monitoring System	Measurement of ambient conditions	Continuous recording of light intensity (lux), temperature, humidity, and air velocity

The selection of appropriate statistical methods for agreement assessment represents a critical consideration in circadian rhythm research, particularly when validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature measurements. Correlation analysis, while useful for establishing relationship strength, fails to assess agreement and should not be used as the primary method for device or protocol validation. Bland-Altman analysis provides the recommended approach for quantifying agreement between continuous measurement methods, offering intuitive visualization of bias and limits of agreement across the measurement range. Phase difference distribution analysis serves a specialized role in evaluating timing relationships between cyclical biological processes, making it particularly valuable for investigating phase angle differences between circadian markers.

Each method possesses distinct strengths, limitations, and application domains that researchers must consider when designing validation studies. The convergence of evidence from multiple statistical approaches, combined with careful consideration of clinical relevance and biological plausibility, provides the most robust foundation for conclusions regarding method agreement and interchangeability. As technological advances continue to produce novel measurement techniques for circadian parameters, appropriate statistical validation remains essential for ensuring their reliability in both research and clinical applications.

The accurate assessment of circadian timing is a cornerstone of sleep and chronobiological research, particularly in clinical populations with circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders such as Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD). DSWPD is characterized by a significant delay of the endogenous sleep-wake rhythm relative to socially required or desired sleep-wake times, causing chronic inability to fall asleep and wake at acceptable hours [91]. Research into this disorder has provided a critical testing ground for comparing the two primary methods of circadian phase assessment: the Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) and Core Body Temperature (CBT) minimum rhythms. While CBTmin has historically served as a gold standard circadian marker, the validation of DLMO as a more practical and reliable alternative has significant implications for both clinical practice and research methodologies [8] [14]. This validation process requires rigorous comparison in well-characterized clinical populations, where the precise alignment between physiological markers and clinical symptoms can be thoroughly evaluated. The growing recognition that a substantial portion of DSWPD patients may not actually demonstrate a circadian delay when measured objectively further underscores the necessity of robust validation protocols for accurate diagnosis and treatment [4]. This review synthesizes evidence from multiple experimental approaches to evaluate the comparative validity of DLMO and CBT protocols within DSWPD populations, examining both laboratory and real-world validation paradigms.

Comparative Analysis of Circadian Phase Assessment Methodologies

Table 1: Comparison of Primary Circadian Phase Assessment Methodologies

Assessment Method	Measured Parameter	Protocol Requirements	Advantages	Limitations	Validation Status in DSWPD
DLMO (Dim Light Melatonin Onset)	Onset of melatonin secretion in dim light	Serial saliva sampling every 30-60 min in dim light (<10-20 lux) for 5-7 hours before habitual bedtime [4] [12]	Non-invasive; direct hormone measurement; strong correlation with sleep propensity; established gold standard [4]	Requires controlled lighting; multiple samples; laboratory analysis; cost-intensive [4]	Well-validated; accurately classifies 74-95% of DSWPD cases using prediction models [4]
Core Body Temperature (CBT) Minimum	Nadir of core body temperature rhythm	Continuous rectal temperature monitoring or ingestible temperature pills over at least 24-hour period [14]	Objective physiological measure; continuous data stream; well-established rhythm	Highly invasive; impractical for clinical use; affected by activity, food intake, and sleep [8]	Used as reference in laboratory studies; demonstrates phase delay in DSWPD [14]
Prediction Models (Actigraphy/Light)	Estimated DLMO from activity/light data	~7 days of ambulatory light and activity monitoring using actigraphy [4]	Non-invasive; low participant burden; suitable for field studies	Accuracy limitations (±1 hour in 58-75% of DSWPD patients); requires validation against biochemical markers [4]	Statistical and dynamic models show promise with RMSE of 57-68 minutes versus measured DLMO [4]

The validation of DLMO against established circadian markers represents a significant advancement in circadian rhythm assessment. While CBTmin has historically served as a fundamental circadian phase marker, its practical limitations in clinical and real-world settings have driven the search for alternative methodologies [8]. DLMO has emerged as a more practical gold standard, with research demonstrating its reliable correlation with both CBT rhythms and clinical manifestations of DSWPD [14] [12]. In validation studies, DLMO timing shows consistent association with sleep timing parameters in insomnia patients (r = 0.27-0.37), and the phase angle between DLMO and sleep onset is significantly correlated with sleep latency, duration, and efficiency (r = -0.32 to 0.41) [12]. Furthermore, DLMO has been successfully integrated into mathematical models that can accurately predict circadian phase from non-invasive measurements, demonstrating the robustness of this biomarker when properly validated against established physiological parameters [4].

The experimental protocols for establishing DLMO as a validated circadian marker involve rigorous standardization. For DLMO assessment, participants typically undergo serial saliva sampling every 30-60 minutes under dim light conditions (<10-20 lux) for 5-7 hours before their habitual bedtime [4] [12]. Melatonin concentrations are determined by radioimmunoassay with a typical detection limit of 1 pg/mL, and DLMO is calculated as the time when melatonin concentrations consistently exceed a threshold (usually 3 or 4 pg/mL) or a percentage of the peak amplitude [12]. Simultaneously, CBT measurement requires continuous monitoring via rectal probe or ingestible temperature sensor throughout the 24-hour cycle, with data analyzed to identify the precise nadir of the temperature rhythm [14]. The comparison of these parallel measurements in well-characterized DSWPD populations has confirmed their strong covariation, supporting the validity of DLMO as a surrogate marker for the underlying circadian phase previously measured by CBTmin [14].

Experimental Validation Paradigms in DSWPD Research

Table 2: Key Validation Studies in DSWPD Populations

Study Design	Population	Primary Validation Methodology	Key Findings Supporting DLMO Validation	Limitations
Light-Based Phase Prediction [4]	154 DSWPD patients (16-64 years)	Comparison of statistical and dynamic models using ~7 days of sleep-wake and light data to predict DLMO	Both models performed well: statistical model predicted DLMO within ±1 h in 75% and ±2 h in 96%; dynamic model within ±1 h in 58% and ±2 h in 94%	Predictions regressed toward mean for extreme phases; requires further validation against CBT
Circadian Lighting Intervention [14]	15 office workers in 4-week field experiment	Measured DLMO and CBT under different lighting patterns in real-world office setting	Forward Lighting Pattern (FLP) advanced DLMO by ~47 minutes and increased melatonin secretion 1.5-fold compared to static lighting	Small sample size; limited duration; office setting may not generalize to clinical populations
DLMO-Sleep Continuity Association [12]	128 insomnia patients with normative sleep timing	Laboratory assessment of DLMO with simultaneous actigraphy and sleep diary measurement	Phase angle between DLMO and sleep onset >3 hours associated with longer sleep latencies (43.2 min longer) and shorter sleep duration (65.7 min shorter)	Excluded patients with extreme sleep timing; did not directly measure CBT for comparison

Multiple experimental approaches have been employed to validate circadian assessment protocols in DSWPD populations, with consistent findings supporting the reliability of DLMO as a clinical and research tool. Mathematical modeling represents one promising validation approach, where statistical and dynamic models incorporating light exposure data can predict DLMO with considerable accuracy in DSWPD patients [4]. These models demonstrate root mean square errors of 57-68 minutes when compared to measured DLMO, with 75% of predictions falling within ±1 hour for statistical models and 58% for dynamic models [4]. This approach provides an important validation bridge by demonstrating that DLMO can be accurately estimated from non-invasive measurements that account for the primary zeitgeber (light) affecting the circadian system.

Intervention studies provide another robust validation paradigm, where manipulations known to affect circadian timing are assessed through simultaneous measurement of multiple circadian markers. In a four-week field experiment implementing different lighting patterns in an office environment, both DLMO and CBT were measured to evaluate circadian phase shifts [14]. The Forward Lighting Pattern (FLP), which provided higher circadian-effective light in the morning and lower in the evening, resulted in a ~47 minute advance in DLMO alongside a 1.5-fold increase in melatonin secretion compared to static lighting conditions [14]. This coordinated response of multiple circadian markers to environmental manipulation strengthens the validity of DLMO as a sensitive indicator of circadian phase changes in real-world conditions.

Clinical correlation studies further support the validation of DLMO against functional outcomes. Research demonstrates that the phase angle between DLMO and sleep onset is significantly associated with sleep continuity measures in insomnia patients [12]. Participants with a phase angle greater than 3 hours between DLMO and sleep onset exhibited significantly longer sleep latencies (mean difference = 43.21 minutes) and shorter sleep durations (mean difference = -65.66 minutes) compared to those with a phase angle less than 2 hours [12]. These findings validate the clinical relevance of DLMO measurements by demonstrating their association with functional sleep outcomes in disordered populations.

Molecular Mechanisms and Technological Innovations in Circadian Assessment

Figure 1: Circadian Rhythm Regulation and Biomarker Interrelationships

The validation of circadian assessment protocols is grounded in the understanding of fundamental circadian biology. At the molecular level, the circadian clock operates as a transcriptional-translational feedback loop with core components including BMAL, PERIOD (PER), CRYPTOCHROME (CRY), and CLOCK proteins [8]. CLOCK and BMAL1 heterodimerize to activate transcription of Per and Cry genes, whose protein products eventually inhibit CLOCK and BMAL activity, completing a roughly 24-hour cycle [8]. This molecular machinery is present not only in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) but throughout peripheral tissues, creating a coordinated circadian system that regulates physiological rhythms including both melatonin secretion and core body temperature [8].

Technological innovations have enabled new approaches to validating circadian protocols in real-world settings. Digital biomarkers derived from wearable devices provide continuous, non-invasive assessment of circadian parameters that can be validated against gold standard measures [92]. By applying nonlinear state estimation approaches to heart rate (HR), activity, and sleep data from wearable devices, researchers can estimate both central and peripheral circadian rhythms and calculate digital markers of circadian disruption [92]. These include misalignment between the central circadian oscillator and sleep midpoint (CRCO-sleep misalignment), misalignment between peripheral oscillators and sleep midpoint (CRPO-sleep misalignment), and internal misalignment between central and peripheral oscillators [92]. Validation studies involving medical interns demonstrate that these digital markers show expected changes during stressful periods (internship) and correlate with mood measures, supporting their validity as circadian disruption indicators [92].

The integration of mathematical modeling with physiological measurement represents another advancement in validation methodologies. The Jewett-Kronauer model and other mathematical frameworks quantify the characteristics of the circadian clock and its response to light, particularly the phase-dependent sensitivity described by the Phase Response Curve (PRC) [4]. When trained on DSWPD population data, these models can accurately predict DLMO from ambulatory light exposure data, providing an important cross-validation approach that links environmental inputs to physiological outputs through biologically plausible mechanisms [4].

Essential Research Tools for Circadian Protocol Validation

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Circadian Validation Studies

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function in Validation Protocols	Key Considerations for DSWPD Populations
Biochemical Assay Kits	Salivary Melatonin Radioimmunoassay (RIA) Kits [12]	Quantitative measurement of melatonin concentration for DLMO determination	Sensitivity to detect low pg/mL concentrations; minimal sample volume requirements
Actigraphy Systems	Philips Actiwatch Spectrum, Fitbit Charge 2 [12] [92]	Objective monitoring of sleep-wake patterns and light exposure for phase prediction	Sufficient light sensor sensitivity; validated algorithms for sleep scoring in delayed patterns
Circadian Lighting Systems	IoT-based intelligent lighting control; spectrally tunable LED systems [14]	Precise manipulation of light intensity and spectral composition for intervention studies	Ability to achieve required melanopic EML (Equivalent Melanopic Lux) for circadian entrainment
Temperature Monitoring	Ingestible temperature pills; rectal temperature probes [14]	Continuous core body temperature rhythm assessment for CBTmin determination	Measurement stability over 24+ hours; minimal interference with sleep
Mathematical Modeling Software	Jewett-Kronauer model implementation; nonlinear Kalman filtering [4] [92]	Prediction of circadian phase from light exposure data; statistical validation of biomarkers	Parameter optimization for DSWPD population characteristics (e.g., longer intrinsic periods)
Digital Biomarker Platforms	Intern App; mobile ecological momentary assessment [92]	Real-world mood and symptom tracking correlated with circadian measures	Integration with wearable data streams; minimal participant burden for compliance

The validation of circadian assessment protocols requires specialized research tools and methodologies optimized for DSWPD populations. Biochemical assays form the foundation of DLMO validation, with salivary melatonin radioimmunoassays representing the current gold standard for melatonin quantification [12]. These assays typically demonstrate detection limits of 1 pg/mL with inter-assay coefficients of variation below 15%, providing the sensitivity and reliability required for precise DLMO determination [12]. For CBT measurement, ingestible temperature pills or continuous rectal monitoring systems provide the necessary temporal resolution and physiological accuracy to capture the CBTmin rhythm, though practical limitations have reduced their use in favor of less invasive biomarkers [14].

Actigraphy systems with integrated light sensors represent critical tools for validating circadian protocols in real-world environments. Devices such as the Philips Actiwatch Spectrum and Fitbit Charge 2 provide objective monitoring of sleep-wake patterns and light exposure, generating data that can be incorporated into mathematical models to predict circadian phase [12] [92]. These systems must be validated specifically in DSWPD populations, as the delayed sleep patterns characteristic of this disorder may require specialized algorithms for accurate sleep-wake detection. The integration of these objective measures with subjective sleep diaries provides a comprehensive validation framework that captures both physiological and behavioral dimensions of circadian timing [12].

Mathematical modeling implementations and digital biomarker platforms represent increasingly important tools in circadian protocol validation. Software implementations of the Jewett-Kronauer model and other computational frameworks enable researchers to test hypotheses about circadian regulation and validate prediction algorithms against measured DLMO and CBT parameters [4]. Similarly, mobile digital platforms such as the Intern App facilitate the correlation of circadian measures with daily mood and functional outcomes, providing ecological validation of circadian assessment protocols in real-world contexts [92]. These tools enable large-scale validation studies that would be impractical using laboratory-based measures alone, expanding the scope and generalizability of circadian research.

The validation of circadian assessment protocols in DSWPD populations has demonstrated consistent convergence across multiple methodological approaches, establishing DLMO as a robust and practical biomarker for both research and clinical applications. While CBTmin remains an important physiological rhythm for understanding fundamental circadian biology, the practical limitations of its measurement have necessitated the development and validation of alternative approaches [8] [14]. DLMO has emerged from this validation process as a reliable correlate of underlying circadian phase, with strong associations to functional outcomes including sleep initiation, duration, and quality in DSWPD populations [12].

The successful validation of prediction models that accurately estimate DLMO from non-invasive light and activity monitoring represents a significant advancement for both research and clinical practice [4]. These models demonstrate that robust circadian assessment can be conducted in real-world environments, potentially expanding access to circadian-based diagnoses and treatments. Furthermore, the development of digital biomarkers derived from wearable devices creates new opportunities for continuous circadian monitoring in naturalistic settings, with validation studies confirming their association with both physiological measures and functional outcomes [92].

For researchers and clinicians working with DSWPD populations, this convergent validation supports the use of DLMO as a primary circadian phase marker, supplemented by actigraphy-based sleep monitoring and digital biomarkers when laboratory-based measures are impractical. The integration of these validated assessment protocols into both research and clinical practice will enhance our understanding of DSWPD pathophysiology and improve the precision of chronobiological treatments for this challenging disorder. As circadian medicine continues to evolve, the validation of assessment protocols in well-characterized clinical populations such as DSWPD patients will remain essential for translating basic circadian science into effective clinical applications.

Comparative Analysis of Burden, Cost, and Precision Between DLMO and CBT

Within circadian biology research and the growing field of chronotherapy, accurate assessment of an individual's internal circadian phase is paramount. The two most established biomarkers for this purpose are the Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) and the circadian rhythm of Core Body Temperature (CBT) [93]. The choice between these markers has significant implications for research design, clinical application, and drug development protocols. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of DLMO and CBT, framing the analysis within the broader thesis of validating streamlined DLMO protocols against the longer-established, yet more burdensome, CBT research. For researchers and pharmaceutical professionals, understanding the trade-offs in burden, cost, and precision between these biomarkers is critical for optimizing study feasibility and data reliability.

Experimental Protocols for Circadian Phase Assessment

Core Body Temperature (CBT) Measurement Protocol

The gold standard for CBT assessment involves a constant routine protocol, designed to unmask the endogenous circadian rhythm by minimizing the effects of sleep, activity, posture, and food intake [93]. In practice, for real-world applications, CBT is often measured using ingestible telemetric pills.

• Procedure: Participants swallow an electronic pill that measures core temperature at regular intervals (e.g., every minute) as it travels through the gastrointestinal tract. Data are transmitted to an external receiver [94].
• Duration: Monitoring typically spans at least 24 hours to reliably capture the temperature nadir (bathyphase). Longer recordings over multiple days improve accuracy [94].
• Data Analysis: The collected time-series data are analyzed using cosinor analysis or hidden Markov modeling to determine the timing of the temperature minimum (bathyphase), which serves as a phase marker [94].

Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) Measurement Protocol

DLMO marks the time at which endogenous melatonin concentration begins to rise in the evening under dim light conditions. It is considered the gold standard marker for the timing of the central circadian clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus [23] [93].

• Procedure: Participants provide serial saliva samples (or blood/urine samples) in dim light conditions (<10-30 lux), typically starting 4-6 hours before habitual bedtime and continuing until sleep onset [4] [93].
• Sampling Frequency: Samples are collected at hourly or half-hourly intervals.
• Dim Light Control: Strict control of light exposure is critical, as even brief exposure to moderate light can suppress melatonin and confound results [93].
• Analysis: Melatonin levels are assayed, and DLMO is calculated as the time at which concentrations exceed a predetermined threshold (e.g., 3 pg/mL or 4 pg/mL) above the baseline average [4].

Comparative Analysis: Burden, Cost, and Precision

The following tables synthesize quantitative and qualitative data from comparative studies to summarize the key differences between DLMO and CBT assessments.

Table 1: Direct Comparison of Burden, Cost, and Practical Factors

Factor	Core Body Temperature (CBT)	Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO)
Measurement Burden	High burden for constant routine; moderate for telemetric pills during normal life [93].	High burden due to requirement for repeated sampling in controlled dim light [93].
Participant Inconvenience	Ingestible pill is non-invasive but requires swallowing; constant routine is highly demanding [93] [94].	Serial saliva/blood sampling is invasive and can be stressful for participants [93].
Protocol Duration	Typically 24+ hours to capture full cycle [94].	Typically ~4-6 hours on a single evening [4].
Key Practical Constraints	Affected by sleep, activity, and food (unless using constant routine); telemetric pills are single-use [93] [94].	Extremely sensitive to light exposure; requires strict environmental control [93].
Direct Financial Cost	Cost of electronic pills and receiver equipment; laboratory constant routine is very expensive [93].	Cost of sample collection kits and laboratory assays (e.g., ELISA) for multiple samples [93].

Table 2: Comparison of Precision, Reliability, and Phase Relationship

Characteristic	Core Body Temperature (CBT)	Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO)
Phase Marker	Timing of minimum (bathyphase) [94].	Timing of evening onset [4] [23].
Phase Variability (Between-Subject)	Bathyphase spread over 7 hours in a cohort during daily routine [94].	DLMO spread over 5 hours 10 minutes in a cohort during daily routine [94].
Prediction Accuracy	Can be predicted within <1 hour for 78.8% of subjects using a multimodal algorithm (INTime) [94].	Can be predicted from light/sleep data with RMSE of 57-68 minutes in clinical populations [4].
Correlation with Sleep	The phase relationship between CBTmin and wake time is a key measure of circadian alignment [23].	The phase angle between DLMO and bedtime/waketime (PAD) is a critical measure of alignment [23].
Clinical Diagnostic Utility	Less commonly used directly in clinical diagnostics for circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders (CRSWD) [93].	Explicitly mentioned in diagnostic criteria for some CRSWDs; considered highly relevant for timing light/melatonin therapy [93].

Visualization of Assessment Workflows and Phase Alignment

The following diagrams illustrate the procedural pathways for both biomarkers and their relationship to the sleep-wake cycle, a key concept in circadian research.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Solutions for Circadian Biomarker Research

Item	Function in Research	Application
Telemetric CBT Pills	Ingestible sensor that measures and transmits core body temperature from the gastrointestinal tract.	Ambulatory CBT monitoring outside the laboratory [94].
Portable Salivary Melatonin Kits	Collection kit for obtaining saliva samples for melatonin assay. Typically includes salivettes and storage tubes.	Home-based or field-based collection of samples for DLMO determination [93].
Melatonin Enzyme Immunoassay (ELISA)	Kit for quantifying melatonin concentration in saliva, plasma, or urine samples.	Determining melatonin concentration from serial samples to calculate DLMO [4] [93].
Actigraphs	Wearable devices (worn on the wrist) that measure movement (actigraphy) and often ambient light.	Objective estimation of sleep-wake patterns and light exposure, used in predictive models of DLMO and CBT [4] [95] [92].
Dim Red Light Source	Light source that provides illumination without suppressing melatonin production (due to low sensitivity of the melanopsin system to long wavelengths).	Allows for safe lighting during evening saliva sample collection for DLMO protocols [93].

The comparative analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: DLMO offers superior specificity as a direct marker of the central circadian pacemaker and is more directly integrated into clinical diagnostics for circadian rhythm disorders. However, this comes with a high burden of strict environmental control and costly, invasive sampling. CBT, while a robust rhythm, is more susceptible to masking by daily behaviors, though ambulatory monitoring with telemetric pills reduces participant burden compared to a constant routine.

The future of circadian medicine in drug development lies in leveraging the strengths of each marker appropriately. DLMO remains the benchmark for validating new protocols and therapies aimed directly at the circadian system. Meanwhile, the development of sophisticated computational models that predict circadian phase from non-invasive data like rest-activity and light exposure promises to reduce the burden and cost of large-scale studies [4] [92] [94]. For researchers, the choice between DLMO and CBT should be guided by the specific research question, required precision, budget, and the feasibility of protocol implementation in the target population.

The accurate prediction of circadian phase is a cornerstone of chronobiology, with direct implications for diagnosing sleep disorders, optimizing drug efficacy in chronotherapeutics, and understanding cardiovascular health. For decades, gold-standard measurements like dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) and core body temperature (CBT) minimum have required invasive, costly, and labor-intensive laboratory protocols, limiting their widespread clinical application [8] [4]. This has spurred the development of non-invasive predictive models that estimate circadian phase using accessible data, such as light exposure and sleep-wake patterns.

These models largely fall into two categories: statistical models, which use regression techniques to find associations between input variables and circadian phase, and dynamic models, which mathematically formalize the underlying biology of the circadian clock and its response to light [4]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these approaches, framing their performance and utility within the critical context of validating DLMO protocols against core body temperature research for a scientific audience.

Model Paradigms: Core Principles and Methodologies

Dynamic Models: Simulating the Circadian Pacemaker

Dynamic models are built upon the foundational two-process model of sleep regulation, which posits that sleep-wake cycles are governed by the interaction between a homeostatic process (sleep pressure) and a circadian process (the endogenous pacemaker) [8]. These models incorporate the known physiology of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the body's master clock.

A key example is the Jewett-Kronauer model, a dynamic circadian oscillator that has been validated in healthy populations. This model quantifies the phase-dependent sensitivity of the circadian clock to light, formalized through a phase response curve (PRC). It uses ambulatory light exposure data as its primary input to dynamically simulate the state of the circadian pacemaker, which can then be calibrated to predict markers like DLMO or CBTmin [96] [4]. These models are fundamentally rooted in differential equations that simulate the oscillator's behavior over time.

Statistical Models: Data-Driven Predictive Associations

In contrast, statistical models do not attempt to simulate the underlying biology. Instead, they establish associative relationships between easily measured input variables and a circadian phase output. A prominent approach uses multiple linear regression to predict DLMO.

These models typically incorporate inputs such as:

• Light exposure during specific, phase-sensitive regions of the day (e.g., the phase delay and advance portions of the PRC).
• Habitual sleep timing (e.g., bed and wake times).
• Demographic variables [4].

The model is "trained" on a dataset where both the inputs and the gold-standard phase measurement (e.g., DLMO) are known, allowing it to learn the weights for each input variable that best predict the outcome. This results in a purely empirical, data-driven prediction tool.

Direct Performance Comparison: Statistical vs. Dynamic Models

A direct comparison of these model types was conducted in a clinical population of 154 patients with Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder (DSWPD). The study evaluated a statistical regression model against a dynamic model (a trained version of the Jewett-Kronauer model) for predicting DLMO [4]. The table below summarizes the key performance metrics from this study.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Statistical and Dynamic Models in Predicting DLMO

Metric	Statistical Model	Dynamic Model
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	57 minutes	68 minutes
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	44 minutes	57 minutes
Prediction within ±1 hour	75% of participants	58% of participants
Prediction within ±2 hours	96% of participants	94% of participants
Variance Explained (R²)	R² = 0.61	R² = 0.48

Performance Analysis and Clinical Utility

Both models performed comparably, demonstrating the viability of non-invasive phase prediction. However, the statistical model exhibited a modest advantage in prediction accuracy across all metrics in this clinical cohort [4]. This suggests that for specific populations, a well-constructed statistical model can capture the essential variance in circadian phase.

When tested for clinical utility—classifying patients as having circadian vs. non-circadian DSWPD—both models showed similar diagnostic potential:

• Statistical Model: Sensitivity 74%, Specificity 63%, F1-score 0.71.
• Dynamic Model: Sensitivity 64%, Specificity 66%, F1-score 0.65 [4].

A notable limitation observed for both model types was a tendency to regress extreme phenotypes toward the population mean, underestimating the phase of individuals with very early or very late DLMOs [4].

Experimental Protocols for Model Development and Validation

The development and validation of these models rely on rigorous experimental protocols designed to collect high-fidelity data for training and testing.

Core Body Temperature Monitoring Protocols

Research into CBT rhythms, often used to validate circadian models, involves controlled settings to isolate the endogenous pacemaker.

• Forced Desynchrony Protocol: This protocol desynchronizes the sleep-wake cycle from the endogenous circadian cycle by placing participants on artificially long (e.g., 28-hour) or short (e.g., 20-hour) day cycles in a laboratory. This allows researchers to measure the pure circadian rhythm of CBT without the masking effects of sleep and activity [97].
• Constant Routine Protocol: Participants are kept in a state of continuous wakefulness under constant, dim light conditions, with posture, activity, and nutritional intake evenly distributed across the circadian cycle. This protocol minimizes external influences, revealing the unmasked circadian rhythm of CBT [97].

In these protocols, CBT is typically measured invasively via rectal thermistor or ingestible telemetry pill, providing the gold-standard data against which non-invasive models are benchmarked [97] [98].

DLMO Assessment Protocol

The DLMO protocol is the gold standard for assessing the timing of the circadian system in outpatient settings.

• Procedure: Participants provide serial saliva samples (e.g., every 30-60 minutes) in the hours preceding their habitual sleep time, under dim light conditions (<10-30 lux) to prevent light-induced melatonin suppression.
• Analysis: Salivary melatonin concentration is assayed. DLMO is typically defined as the time when melatonin concentration crosses a predetermined threshold (e.g., 3 or 4 pg/mL) on the upward slope of its secretion curve [4].
• Data Integration: The timing of DLMO, along with actigraphically recorded sleep-wake and light exposure data collected over the preceding ~7 days, forms the core dataset for building and testing both statistical and dynamic models [4].

Workflow Diagram: From Data Collection to Phase Prediction

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for developing and applying both statistical and dynamic models for circadian phase prediction, highlighting their parallel pathways and shared validation step.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful research in this field requires specific tools for data collection and analysis. The following table details key solutions and their applications.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Circadian Phase Prediction Studies

Research Reagent / Tool	Primary Function	Application in Protocol
Actigraph with Lux Sensor	Objective monitoring of sleep-wake patterns and ambient light exposure.	Worn on the wrist for ~7 days prior to phase assessment to capture input data for models [4].
Salivary Melatonin Kit	Collection and assay of saliva to determine melatonin concentration.	Used in the DLMO protocol; samples are collected serially in dim light and analyzed via radioimmunoassay or ELISA [4].
Ingestible Core Temperature Pill	Non-invasive, gastrointestinal measurement of core body temperature.	Provides continuous CBT data for validation of predictive models in field or lab settings [98].
Polysomnography (PSG) System	Comprehensive recording of physiological signals during sleep (EEG, EOG, EMG, ECG).	The gold standard for objective sleep staging, used to validate sleep metrics derived from actigraphy [8] [99].
Rectal Thermistor	Invasive but highly accurate continuous measurement of core temperature.	Often used in laboratory protocols (e.g., constant routine) to obtain gold-standard CBT rhythms for model validation [97].
Heart Rate Variability (HRV) Monitor	Measurement of beat-to-beat intervals from an electrocardiogram (ECG).	Serves as a potential non-invasive input for predictive models, as autonomic activity is modulated by the circadian system [99].

The emergence of statistical and dynamic models represents a significant advancement in making circadian phase assessment accessible beyond the laboratory. While dynamic models provide a powerful framework grounded in circadian physiology, statistical models have demonstrated comparable, and in some cases superior, predictive accuracy in clinical populations by leveraging data-driven associations.

The choice between these approaches depends on the research goals. Dynamic models are more generalizable and can simulate responses to novel light schedules, while statistical models can be highly precise for specific populations. Critically, both require rigorous validation against gold-standard measures like DLMO and core body temperature. Future work should focus on improving the prediction of extreme phenotypes and integrating these tools into clinical diagnostics and chronotherapeutic drug development.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials Table 1: Essential materials and tools for circadian rhythm assessment.

Item	Function in Circadian Research
Actiwatch (Research-Grade)	Wrist-worn device that collects objective data for sleep-wake cycles; some models also measure light exposure. [100] [101]
Consumer Wearables (e.g., Apple Watch, Fitbit)	Collects activity and, on some models, heart rate data; provides a ubiquitous source of real-world data for proxy models. [100] [102]
Salivary Melatonin Kit	Enables the collection of saliva samples for the determination of Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO), including in at-home settings. [26]
Urinary 6-Sulphatoxymelatonin (aMT6s)	A urinary metabolite of melatonin used as a non-invasive biomarker for circadian phase, particularly in shift work studies. [101]
Mathematical Models (e.g., Kronauer-type, limit-cycle oscillator)	Algorithms that process light and activity data from wearables to estimate and predict an individual's circadian phase. [100] [101] [103]

Circadian rhythms are near-24-hour oscillations governing fundamental physiological processes. In clinical research and drug development, accurately assessing the phase of an individual's internal clock is critical for diagnosing circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders (CRSWDs), timing drug administration for chronotherapy, and evaluating treatment efficacy. The gold standards for assessing the central circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) are Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) and the timing of the Core Body Temperature minimum (CBTmin). DLMO marks the evening rise in melatonin secretion from the pineal gland, while CBTmin represents the nadir of the core body temperature rhythm, which typically occurs in the second half of the night [103].

However, the direct measurement of these biomarkers is resource-intensive, invasive, and impractical for large-scale or longitudinal studies. This limitation has catalyzed the development of validated proxies that use mathematical models to estimate circadian phase from data passively collected by wearable devices. This guide provides a structured comparison of these methods, framing the validation of non-invasive proxies against established gold standards within the context of real-world research and development.

Comparative Analysis of Circadian Phase Assessment Methods

The following table summarizes the key characteristics, performance data, and optimal use cases for DLMO, CBT, and emerging validated proxies.

Table 2: Comparison of gold-standard biomarkers and validated proxies for circadian phase assessment.

Feature	DLMO	Core Body Temperature (CBT)	Validated Proxy (Actigraphy + Model)	Validated Proxy (Consumer Wearable + Model)
Definition	Time of melatonin rise in dim light [103]	Time of the minimum core body temperature [103]	Phase estimate from actigraphy data processed by a mathematical model [100]	Phase estimate from consumer device (e.g., activity, heart rate) data processed by a model [100] [102]
Measurement Method	Saliva or blood samples every 30-60 min in dim light [26]	Rectal probe or ingestible pill thermometer [103]	Wrist-worn research actigraph (e.g., Actiwatch) [100]	Commercial device (e.g., Apple Watch, Fitbit) [100] [26]
Key Experimental Protocols	Sample collection starts 6h before & ends 2h after habitual bedtime; DLMO calculated using absolute (e.g., 3 pg/mL) or relative (2 SD above mean) threshold [26]	Continuous measurement over at least 24h; CBTmin identified from the fitted temperature rhythm curve [103]	Subjects wear actigraph for 7-14 days; light and activity data are input into a circadian model (e.g., photic-nonphotic) [100] [101]	Subjects wear device during waking hours; data is processed using statistical methods or apps (e.g., "Social Rhythms" app) [100] [102]
Quantitative Performance	Gold-standard phase marker [26]	Gold-standard phase marker; occurs ~2h before habitual wake time [103]	Mean absolute error vs. DLMO: ~0.95 hours in shift workers [101]; Predicts DLMO within 1h in normal conditions [100]	Predicts DLMO within 1h in normal living conditions [100]
Advantages	Direct output of the SCN-pineal axis; high sensitivity to phase shifts [103]	Continuous, robust rhythm; well-established marker [103]	Non-invasive, passive, suitable for long-term field studies [100]	Highly scalable, uses devices already owned by millions [100] [102]
Disadvantages	Labor-intensive, expensive, requires strict dim light conditions [26]	Invasive, impractical for large-scale or ambulatory studies [103]	Requires model validation; performance can vary with schedule regularity [101]	Proprietary algorithms; data type and quality can vary by device [26]
Optimal Context of Use	Clinical trials where high-precision phase assessment is critical (e.g., for a novel chronobiotic drug) [26]	Laboratory studies of fundamental circadian physiology and thermoregulation [103]	Large-scale observational studies, shift work research, and long-term monitoring of circadian stability [100] [101]	Real-world effectiveness trials, population-level health studies, and personalized health applications [100] [102]

Experimental Protocols and Validation Workflows

Validating a proxy measurement against a gold standard requires a rigorous experimental design. The workflow below outlines a standard protocol for assessing the accuracy of a mathematical model that uses wearable data to predict DLMO.

Diagram 1: Proxy validation workflow.

Detailed Experimental Methodology

The workflow in Diagram 1 involves several critical steps:

• Ambulatory Monitoring: Participants wear a wearable device (research-grade actigraph or consumer device) for a period of typically 7 to 14 days while following their normal routines. The device continuously records light exposure and activity (or heart rate), which serve as the primary inputs for the mathematical models [100] [101].
• Laboratory Phase Assessment: Following the ambulatory period, participants report to the laboratory for gold-standard phase measurement. For DLMO, this involves collecting saliva or blood samples every 30 to 60 minutes under dim light conditions (<10 lux), starting 6 hours before habitual bedtime and continuing for 2 hours after. The samples are then assayed for melatonin concentration to determine the precise DLMO [100] [26].
• Model Prediction and Validation: The recorded light and activity data are processed by a mathematical model of the human circadian pacemaker. Common models include the Kronauer-type limit-cycle oscillator and its derivatives, which can be purely photic or include a non-photic (PNP) component based on activity-rest patterns [101] [103]. The model outputs a predicted circadian phase, which is then compared to the measured DLMO. Performance is quantified using metrics like mean absolute error (MAE) and the percentage of predictions falling within ±1 hour of the DLMO [100] [101].

Signaling Pathways and Model Integration

Understanding how proxy measurements relate to gold-standard biomarkers requires a foundational knowledge of the underlying circadian system. The following diagram illustrates the pathway from environmental stimuli to the measurable rhythms of CBT and melatonin, highlighting where computational models integrate data.

Diagram 2: Circadian physiology and model integration.

Key Physiological and Model Components

• The SCN as the Master Pacemaker: The SCN receives light information via the retinohypothalamic tract and orchestrates peripheral rhythms. It directly suppresses the pineal gland during the day, inhibiting melatonin production. The SCN also sends signals to hypothalamic thermoregulatory centers to rhythmically modulate the body's temperature set point [103].
• Gold-Standard Biomarkers as Outputs: DLMO is a direct hormonal output of the SCN-pineal axis. CBTmin is a rhythm regulated by the SCN's output to thermoregulatory systems. Both are robust markers of the underlying central circadian phase [103].
• Model Integration of Inputs: Computational models, such as the limit-cycle oscillator models, use measured light exposure as their primary input, mimicking the photic entrainment pathway to the SCN. Many modern models also incorporate activity or rest data as a non-photic input, which can improve prediction accuracy, especially in populations with irregular light exposure, such as shift workers [100] [101]. The model essentially functions as a mathematical representation of the SCN, integrating these real-world stimuli to output a predicted circadian phase that can be validated against DLMO or CBTmin.

The choice between DLMO, CBT, and a validated proxy is not a matter of identifying a single superior tool, but of selecting the most appropriate one for a specific research context.

For high-precision clinical trials where the primary endpoint is a direct, unambiguous measure of circadian phase (e.g., validating a phase-shifting drug), DLMO remains the indispensable gold standard. CBT retains its value in fundamental physiology research focused on thermoregulation and metabolic processes.

For large-scale, real-world studies—including those in shift workers, long-term observational cohorts, and drug development projects focused on real-world effectiveness—validated proxies offer a transformative approach. The evidence demonstrates that these models, particularly when using activity data from consumer-grade wearables, can predict DLMO with an accuracy of about 1 hour in normal and even challenging conditions [100] [101]. This balance of accuracy, scalability, and passive data collection makes them a powerful tool for bringing circadian medicine into mainstream research and development.

Conclusion

The validation of DLMO against core body temperature remains a cornerstone of rigorous circadian research, confirming that while DLMO is the practical gold standard, CBT provides a foundational physiological correlate. A successful validation strategy requires a fit-for-purpose approach, balancing the high precision of intensive laboratory protocols with the growing potential of less invasive, model-based predictors for large-scale studies. Future directions should focus on standardizing validation frameworks across diverse populations, further developing and validating digital biomarkers like peripheral temperature, and integrating these precise circadian phase tools into the design of clinical trials and chronotherapeutic drug development to ultimately improve patient outcomes.

References

• 1. The two - process of model : Beginnings and outlook sleep regulation [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35502706/]
• 2. The complexity and commonness of the two - process of model ... sleep [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44323-025-00039-z?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 3. Further evidence for circadian misalignment in non-seasonal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2914120/]
• 4. Light-based methods for predicting circadian phase in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89924-8]
• 5. Mathematical Models for Sleep-Wake Dynamics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4118955/]
• 6. Treatise on an alternative perspective on the two-process ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44323-025-00038-0]
• 7. Circadian Control of Sleep by Melatonin via MT 1 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12139804/]
• 8. Methods for Assessment of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12540570/]
• 9. Circadian Biomarkers in Humans: Methodological Insights ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/15/7/1006]
• 10. A mathematical model of melatonin synthesis and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025556424001408]
• 11. Comprehensive integrative analysis of circadian rhythms in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44323-025-00035-3]
• 12. Circadian Rhythm Timing and Associations With Sleep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12322714/]
• 13. Performance of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Human Circadian ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12572356/]
• 14. A long-term evidence-based study of circadian rhythm ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132325010844]
• 15. Higher central circadian temperature amplitude is ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-67297-y]
• 16. Effects on Circadian Re‐Entrainment of Core Body ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12070452/]
• 17. Estimation of core body temperature by near-infrared imaging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8407806/]
• 18. Physiology, Temperature Regulation - StatPearls - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507838/]
• 19. A novel method to separate circadian from non ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945725001996]
• 20. Scientific Data Validating CORE's Accuracy [https://corebodytemp.com/pages/scientific-data-validating-cores-accuracy?srsltid=AfmBOooJ3L5SZzL5WFOiOp-Quj7x_eiuuYsh5g_3Asq6-YJH4cd1kbhH]
• 21. Comparative analysis of thermoregulation models to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306456524002535]
• 22. Feasibility and acceptability of self-directed, remote dim ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sleep/articles/10.3389/frsle.2025.1593196/full]
• 23. Improved Alignment Between Circadian Biology and Sleep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10840628/]
• 24. Circadian Phase Assessment of Core Body Temperature ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12440587/]
• 25. Core body temperature monitoring in basic research - [https://www.bodycap-medical.com/core-body-temperature/core-body-temperature-monitoring-in-basic-research/]
• 26. Integrating Assessment of Circadian Rhythmicity to Improve ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11832606/]
• 27. Validation Study | About | CALERA Research [https://info.greenteg.com/calera-research/validation-study]
• 28. Diurnal rhythms of wrist temperature are associated with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40977-5]
• 29. Study finds wrist temperature associated with disease risk [https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/study-finds-wrist-temperature-linked-with-future-risk-of-disease]
• 30. The Accuracy of Wrist Skin Temperature in Detecting ... [https://www.jmir.org/2021/6/e20710/]
• 31. Validity of the Use of Wrist and Forehead Temperatures in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8266026/]
• 32. Feasibility and Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Sensors for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480424003731]
• 33. Accuracy of non-invasive body temperature measurement ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223002910]
• 34. Accuracy and precision of four common peripheral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5012839/]
• 35. Building and Environment [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132325014313]
• 36. Feasibility analysis of applying non-invasive core body ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778823010575]
• 37. Feasibility of an At-Home Experimental Circadian ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11843903/]
• 38. Balancing ethical data sharing and open science for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12047515/]
• 39. Code of Ethics [https://acrpnet.org/about-acrp/code-of-ethics]
• 40. Shift Right: Assessing Circadian Rhythm Sleep Disorders ... [https://salimetrics.com/salivary-melatonin-and-dim-light-melatonin-onset-dlmo/]
• 41. Home-based dim light melatonin onset assessment among ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12413864/]
• 42. Laboratory validation of an in-home method for assessing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945712000068]
• 43. Feasibility and acceptability of self-directed, remote dim ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12435390/]
• 44. Human circadian rhythm studies: Practical guidelines for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451994422000062]
• 45. Competitive enzyme linked aptamer based assay for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94304-7]
• 46. Methods for Assessment of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-025-01345-4]
• 47. Validation of an ingestible temperature data logging and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4965001/]
• 48. The Systematic Bias of Ingestible Core Temperature ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.00260/full]
• 49. Ingestible sensors correlate closely with peripheral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7112658/]
• 50. Monitoring core temperature during exercise: ingestible ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8368992/]
• 51. Wireless measurement of rectal temperature during exercise [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306456519302086]
• 52. Validity of the wearable CORE temperature sensor during ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132325007681]
• 53. Activity, sleep and ambient light have a different impact on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28276854/]
• 54. Effect of 60 days of head down tilt bed rest on amplitude ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-024-00387-3]
• 55. Circadian Rhythms, Sleep Deprivation, and Human ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3963479/]
• 56. Circadian Rhythm Sleep–Wake Disorders [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8116400/]
• 57. Chronic Low Quality Sleep Impairs Postural Control in Healthy ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163310]
• 58. Adaptive multi-scale phase-aware fusion network for EEG ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12340438/]
• 59. Distribution-Aware Alignment for Time Series Forecasting [https://openreview.net/forum?id=pQzQfslqlD]
• 60. Markers of criticality in phase synchronization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4173811/]
• 61. A mobility-aware and patch-based Transformer for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378437125007216]
• 62. Dim light melatonin onset (DLMO): A tool for the analysis of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278584606002831]
• 63. Home dim light melatonin onsets with measures of ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26847016/]
• 64. Home Circadian Phase Assessments with Measures of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4434555/]
• 65. Laboratory Validation of an In-Home Method for Assessing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3372704/]
• 66. A novel method to separate circadian from non ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40339518/]
• 67. O020 A novel method to demask non-circadian effects on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11646019/]
• 68. On CORE's accuracy [https://corebodytemp.com/pages/on-cores-accuracy?srsltid=AfmBOoqX2J9ESNlZuTEh2hu0QbFxlS7CY4rqQMwA4-RD1p-pQKkBVZbc]
• 69. The feasibility of measuring sleep and circadian ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7704942/]
• 70. Scientific Data Validating CORE's Accuracy [https://corebodytemp.com/pages/scientific-data-validating-cores-accuracy?srsltid=AfmBOoovIzb54NMZtQ50_pDaRnnjJJZBvhJbRveJ2TkkPy_YLFPmMIeJ]
• 71. Relationship between caregiving burden and alterations in ... [https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-025-06316-7]
• 72. Early adverse physiological event detection using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01129-1]
• 73. Physiological Confounds in BOLD‐fMRI and Their Correction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12149699/]
• 74. FACET – a “Flexible Artifact Correction and Evaluation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3840732/]
• 75. The PhysIO Toolbox for Modeling Physiological Noise in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016502701630259X]
• 76. Predicting circadian misalignment with wearable technology: validation of wrist-worn actigraphy and photometry in night shift workers - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32918087/]
• 77. Predicting circadian misalignment with wearable technology: validation of wrist-worn actigraphy and photometry in night shift workers - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8240654/]
• 78. A classification approach to estimating human circadian phase under circadian alignment from actigraphy and photometry data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8474125/]
• 79. A practical deep learning model for core temperature ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306456525000361]
• 80. Scientific Data Validating CORE's Accuracy [https://corebodytemp.com/pages/scientific-data-validating-cores-accuracy?srsltid=AfmBOooBedKZDbGJZqYWgq71URa7sWshsn1TEslzkPP-6k9N5qwwv6H7]
• 81. Flexible, multimodal device for measurement of body ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41528-024-00373-5]
• 82. Comparative analysis of actigraphy performance in healthy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5279937/]
• 83. A comparison of four methods to estimate dim light ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36519316/]
• 84. The development, inter-rater agreement and performance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138994572100407X]
• 85. Understanding Bland Altman analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4470095/]
• 86. Bland-Altman analysis: A paradigm to understand ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452247318302462]
• 87. Bland–Altman plot [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bland%E2%80%93Altman_plot]
• 88. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2868172/]
• 89. How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5021700/]
• 90. Reliability and Validity of the CORE Sensor to Assess ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8434645/]
• 91. How do youth with Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sleep/articles/10.3389/frsle.2025.1555160/full]
• 92. The real-world association between digital markers of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01348-6]
• 93. Assessment of Circadian Rhythms - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6857846/]
• 94. Predictability of individual circadian phase during daily ... [https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/130423]
• 95. Fast tuning of observer-based circadian phase estimator ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022037884]
• 96. Best Sleep Trackers of 2025: Data That Matters [https://www.sleepfoundation.org/best-sleep-trackers]
• 97. A statistical model of the human core-temperature circadian ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10950837/]
• 98. Using Predictive Modeling Technique to Assess Core ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13009]
• 99. Improved non-invasive detection of sleep stages when ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20282-5]
• 100. Predicting circadian phase across populations: a comparison ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8503830/]
• 101. Application of a Limit-Cycle Oscillator Model for Prediction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47290-6]
• 102. A method for characterizing daily physiology from widely ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237521001065]
• 103. The circadian stimulus-oscillator model: Improvements to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.965525/full]