Three things differentiate the bioZhena medtech from smartphone apps including particularly the most recent, Natural Cycles

1. The bioZhena smart sensor technique is not only for helping to avoid or to achieve pregnancy – reproductive self-management, the logical primary use. Reproductive self-management is also the only women’s healthcare market segment where competition exists, almost entirely in the helping-to-conceive part of it. There is no precedent and no competition in the other important areas of applicability of the bioZhena cervix monitoring technology – especially with the next generation of the sensor, the cervical ring. As an example see and/or for a narrative go to

2. Unlike all of the existing competition, the bioZhena technique does not merely estimate ovulation based on a systemic peripheral physiological variable such as the notoriously unreliable BBT, the Basal Body Temperature. Our unprecedented detection of ovulation is all important for effective performance in fertility management whether contraceptive or proceptive. The competition techniques do not and cannot detect ovulation – and the BBT does not anticipate it, either. The Natural Cycles app gets around this by invoking the calendar and assuming regularity (repeatability) – like in the olden days…  For more, see

3. This makes for a major differentiating factor in the contraceptive arena where the Natural Cycles study of their BBT-based algorithm concluded that 50% of their “typical use” failures to avoid pregnancy were due to the user error of having unprotected intercourse during the postulated fertile window (i.e. warning ignored by user). The good news is that the reported failure rate of some 7% is comparable with that of the oral contraceptive pill. Their Pearl Index puts fertility awareness on a comparable footing with hormonal contraception.

That is good news but their conclusion blaming human failure fails to take into account the lack of reliability in the BBT rise as an indicator of ovulation having taken place (plus or minus 3 days). In their published studies this inherent feature was obscured by the fact that the studied women had apparently mostly regular cycles (which may suggest that such women find the Natural Cycles app compatible with the apparent regularity, which is why they purchased the app).

I discussed the notorious lack of reliability previously with another BBT app, which however did not have the regulatory approval (and was not promoted) for contraceptive use: .

But then, the reported reason for a half of the contraceptive failures is – and will be – equally likely the result of the Natural Cycles’ conservatively postulated 11 unsafe (red) days as described in their Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2016 publication. This long an “unsafe” period was historically the reason for the failure of natural birth control to be adopted by the general population.

The described study protocol suggests that only women with self-assessed regular cycles opted to buy the BBT-and-calendar based app with its 11 “unsafe” days offered to the user instead of the true fertile window. And recall the class-action lawsuit when what is now the Clearblue monitor came on the market as the Persona Contraceptive System and many of its users became pregnant. No, bioZhena will not fall into that category!

The bioZhena cervical tissue monitor, besides offering multiple utility at home and in physicians’ offices, uniquely identifies the only few days of the fertile windows: FERTILE DAY 1, 2 and 3 = OVULATION – unless ovulation is delayed, or unless ovulation does not occur at all in the present menstrual cycle, either of which is also detected by our technique.

A very different proposition.


%d bloggers like this: