HFC Review Board (RE: Review of ovulation calculations)

HFC Review Board

RE: Review of ovulation calculations

Posted by: Brian Frackelton

When: 6/7/2009 3:47:52 PM

Email: support@hormonalforecaster.com

Thanks for sharing this feedback and also for sending in your data file.  This will be analyzed later this summer (2009) when the interpretation algorithm is scheduled for enhancements.  Some of the issues you raised have already been noticed and are scheduled to be fixed.  These include the shortcomings occasionally seen when data records are left blank.  Many of the problems are manifestations of skipped recorded data.  All of them will be reviewed in detail though since you shared your data file.  Thanks for doing this.

The web edition has a mechanism for users to flag cycles with questionable interpretation.  These cycles are reviewed periodically whenever the interpretation algorithm is revisited.

If you disagree with the interpretation of a cycle, you should check the "No" box under the "Confidence in Ovulations" heading in the Chart Library section of your chart page (for the online web edition).  After selecting this, a box will appear which you can check called "I completely disagree with the interpretation."  Checking this box will flag this cycle for review during the next revision of the interpretation algorithm.

If anyone has any additional suggestions on how to improve the Hormonal Forecaster, please email support@hormonalforecaster.com.  Your suggestions are important to the success of the software.

Thanks again for sharing this feedback and your data.

In response to: 
 ---

OK, after putting in data from the last 19 cycles I've charted, I've found that the ovulation calculations are confusing, excessive and misleading. The sympto-thermal rule states that post-ovulatory infertility resumes on the evening of the 3rd day of post-peak temperature shift AND the fourth day of fluid dry-up. All of my charts have been pretty clear according to these rules.

However, your program gives me some crazy ovulation dates, and separates the "cervical fluid" ovulation from the "temperature ovulation" sometimes by a matter of weeks. It seems to be that the first 'peak day' is marked as ovulation instead of the peak day that corresponds with the temperature rise- which is a serious glitch in correct chart interpretation.

Not to mention that it is incorrect to assume an ovulation on peak day, since scientifically, ovulation has been shown to occur +2 or -2 days surrounding the last day of fertile fluid. And it is extremely confusing to have more than one ovulation days on the same chart- you only ovulate once... I think I understand the reasoning, i.e. you can't pinpoint ovulation to the day, but then surely it would be wiser to simply separate the fertile zone from the infertile zone, or to give one (short) range of days during which ovulation occured?

The online program seems to be somewhat better at recognizing the LAST peak as the true peak day, but neither place seems to be able to recognize a slow-rise or fall-back temperature pattern. Also, "peak day ovulation" has been confirmed on my first (incomplete and anovulatory) chart simply from 3 days of fluid I happened to mark down. This is ridiculous, since there was no dry-up entered, and even if you were to base ovulation on fluid signs only (as the Billings method does), you need 4 days of dry-up post peak day to show this.

In addition, I have had to remove altogether my sickness-related temperatures instead of simply marking them disturbed. The program saw the 3-4 days of elevated temps and marked ovulation cross-hairs, irrespective of the fact that they were marked "invalid" and didn't correspond at all with a fluid peak.

In general, I like the lay-out of this program, and I like the statistical analysis it offers, but it doesn't do me much good when I have to manually override 1/4 of my ovulation dates because they have been evaluated incorrectly. I have a very stable luteal phase, but according to your programs calculations, have a pretty wide variation. For example, it gave me a 17 day LP in a cycle that had a 14 day LP- this is a problem, and I probably would have been wasting a lot of pregnancy tests if I had been relying on it's interpretation at the time).

Post a response to this message

Previous Thread:

Review of ovulation calculations

Hormonal Forecaster Message Board Home Page

For assistance, please email boards@hormonalforecaster.com.