The extent and causes of natural variation in menstrual cycles: Integrating empirically-based models of ovarian cycling into research on women’s health
{"title":"The extent and causes of natural variation in menstrual cycles: Integrating empirically-based models of ovarian cycling into research on women’s health","authors":"Amanda A. Shea , Virginia J. Vitzthum","doi":"10.1016/j.ddmod.2020.11.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Menstrual cycle<span> variability has been extensively documented, yet this basic physiological fact has not been well integrated into studies of women’s health. We examine the extent, causes, and implications for clinical research of non-pathological variation in ovarian cycling, and propose guidelines for evaluating the potential contribution of cycle variability to study outcomes.</span></p></div><div><h3>Major sources of information</h3><p>This review relied on clinical data accessed through literature searches.</p></div><div><h3>Data synthesis in the model context</h3><p>Cycle length, occurrence and timing of ovulation, and hormone profiles vary considerably between cycles, women, and populations. The reproductive system is highly responsive to internal and external signals, a consequence of tradeoffs in resource allocation to reproduction versus other bodily functions. Temporary pauses in reproductive effort<span>, which can yield greater lifetime reproductive success, are not necessarily pathological and should, instead, be recognized as a feature of normal reproductive functioning.</span></p></div><div><h3>Incorporating the new understanding into clinical and/or research relevance</h3><p><span>Research on women’s health should incorporate empirically verified biomarkers of cycle physiology and avoid narrow participant inclusion criteria. Cycle length is not an adequate biomarker of either ovulation or progesterone production. Potential cycle-related </span>confounders<span> (cycle phase, hormone concentrations, ovulation status, early pregnancy loss) should be included in research on women’s health.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We can improve our understanding of sex-related differences in the prevalence, severity, diagnosis, and outcomes of disease states, and thereby improve health outcomes for women, through more accurate characterization of menstrual cycle variability and inclusion of relevant empirically grounded cycle biomarkers in research and clinical studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39774,"journal":{"name":"Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ddmod.2020.11.002","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740675720300104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Abstract
Purpose
Menstrual cycle variability has been extensively documented, yet this basic physiological fact has not been well integrated into studies of women’s health. We examine the extent, causes, and implications for clinical research of non-pathological variation in ovarian cycling, and propose guidelines for evaluating the potential contribution of cycle variability to study outcomes.
Major sources of information
This review relied on clinical data accessed through literature searches.
Data synthesis in the model context
Cycle length, occurrence and timing of ovulation, and hormone profiles vary considerably between cycles, women, and populations. The reproductive system is highly responsive to internal and external signals, a consequence of tradeoffs in resource allocation to reproduction versus other bodily functions. Temporary pauses in reproductive effort, which can yield greater lifetime reproductive success, are not necessarily pathological and should, instead, be recognized as a feature of normal reproductive functioning.
Incorporating the new understanding into clinical and/or research relevance
Research on women’s health should incorporate empirically verified biomarkers of cycle physiology and avoid narrow participant inclusion criteria. Cycle length is not an adequate biomarker of either ovulation or progesterone production. Potential cycle-related confounders (cycle phase, hormone concentrations, ovulation status, early pregnancy loss) should be included in research on women’s health.
Conclusions
We can improve our understanding of sex-related differences in the prevalence, severity, diagnosis, and outcomes of disease states, and thereby improve health outcomes for women, through more accurate characterization of menstrual cycle variability and inclusion of relevant empirically grounded cycle biomarkers in research and clinical studies.
期刊介绍:
Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models discusses the non-human experimental models through which inference is drawn regarding the molecular aetiology and pathogenesis of human disease. It provides critical analysis and evaluation of which models can genuinely inform the research community about the direct process of human disease, those which may have value in basic toxicology, and those which are simply designed for effective expression and raw characterisation.