Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

modernfertility.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#31

Post by aaffttoonn »

pg_bot wrote: post #28

Given that you are dealing with medical data that falls outside of HIPAA what are you doing to ensure that PHI remains secure?

Great question! All of our data is securely stored and we take privacy very seriously. Modern Fertility employees can only access user data via an internal administrative portal to which access is strictly controlled and monitored and two-factor authentication is required. Access is reviewed on a regular basis. Data is stored in a de-identified manor. All Modern Fertility employees who handle PHI are required to complete a HIPAA training hosted by HHS.gov.

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#32

Post by dabbledash »

It just needs to be made clear to people that no matter how much else may have changed, 35 is not the new 25 when it comes to having kids.

The only message I got when I was in my early 20s was “you have plenty of time! Make sure you’re established first!” Now it’s very unlikely that I’ll have as many children as I would like, and if I do they’ll have to come in much more rapid succession than I would prefer.

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#33

Post by souprock »

The age range of 21 to 40 needs to be expanded greatly in both directions. Well, really the limit should go away.

This fall my wife goes over the limit. She might be pregnant with a 12th kid already though, so she'd be excluded. We'd like an estimate of how many more kids we'll end up with.

A histogram would be great, for example: 17% chance of no more, 40% chance of 1 more, 23% chance of 2 more, 11% chance of 3 more, 4% chance of 4 more, 3% chance of 5 more, 2% chance of at least 6 more...

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#34

Post by aaffttoonn »

souprock wrote: post #33

The age range of 21 to 40 needs to be expanded greatly in both directions. Well, really the limit should go away. This fall my wife goes over the limit. She might be pregnant with a 12th kid already though, so she'd be excluded. We'd like an estimate of how many more kids we'll end up with. A histogram would be great, for example: 17% chance of no more, 40% chance of 1 more, 23% chance of 2 more, 11% chance of 3 more…

We are working on it! No matter what age you are, the tests are the same. We worked super hard to have age specific content for the range of 21-40 but are excited to expand this. Women need information about fertility through their entire lives because it impacts so many aspects of health and wellbeing. Our next step is to expand our age range to over 40.

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#35

Post by shouldifakeit »

aaffttoonn wrote: post #27
shouldifakeit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love what you're doing, but a piece of advice - please don't oversell and mislead women by suggesting you can tell them 'how many eggs they have' (text taken from your home page). You know well that this is not possible at all. 'High/medium/low' is about the best you can say. Please don't mislead people in this way and diminish what is otherwise a really good product.

Thanks for digging in! We share exactly where the science is and what these tests can and cannot tell you. We can't count the exact number of eggs, and we do report in buckets which are impactful and have clinical utility. One of the hormones we measure is AMH which is a well validated proxy of ovarian reserve. There is a lot of literature on AMH but Hansen et.al.2011 is one of my favorites- they counted the number o…

I repeat: you’re misleading women by telling them you can tell them ‘how many eggs they have.’ (These are the words you use on your website)

There is no way to count the number of eggs exactly but your statements seem to suggest you do this. This is just wrong - the best you can do is give a very wide range.

Also you say AMH levels are well validated as a proxy for ovarian reserve - the science on this is far from what I’d describe as ‘well validated’. Please speak to 5 gynaecologists and let me know if all 5 agree with your assertion. (That it is the best measure available is not the same as saying it’s wdlk validated, please be clear on this).

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#36

Post by foobaw »

shouldifakeit wrote: post #35
aaffttoonn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for digging in! We share exactly where the science is and what these tests can and cannot tell you. We can't count the exact number of eggs, and we do report in buckets which are impactful and have clinical utility. One of the hormones we measure is AMH which is a well validated proxy of ovarian reserve. There is a lot of literature on AMH but Hansen et.al.2011 is one of my favorites- they counted the number o…

I repeat: you’re misleading women by telling them you can tell them ‘how many eggs they have.’ (These are the words you use on your website) There is no way to count the number of eggs exactly but your statements seem to suggest you do this. This is just wrong - the best you can do is give a very wide range. Also you say AMH levels are well validated as a proxy for ovarian reserve - the science on this is far from wh…

Our OBGYN also told me AMH level is a good indicator of ovarian reserve. I did dig in deeper and found quite a bit of official resources backing this claim. Is there any supporting evidence on why it's not "well-validated?"

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#38

Post by aaffttoonn »

shouldifakeit wrote: post #35
aaffttoonn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for digging in! We share exactly where the science is and what these tests can and cannot tell you. We can't count the exact number of eggs, and we do report in buckets which are impactful and have clinical utility. One of the hormones we measure is AMH which is a well validated proxy of ovarian reserve. There is a lot of literature on AMH but Hansen et.al.2011 is one of my favorites- they counted the number o…

I repeat: you’re misleading women by telling them you can tell them ‘how many eggs they have.’ (These are the words you use on your website) There is no way to count the number of eggs exactly but your statements seem to suggest you do this. This is just wrong - the best you can do is give a very wide range. Also you say AMH levels are well validated as a proxy for ovarian reserve - the science on this is far from wh…

Thanks for the feedback on the AMH language. We are always trying to find the best way to simplify the science. In regards to AMH, great question! AMH is known by the clinical community as the best marker for ovarian reserve. I know everyone doesn't have access to peer reviewed journals so here are a few quotes: Podfigurna et al 2017: "AMH level is recognized to be the one of the most reliable markers of ovarian reserve [60–65]. AMH is mainly produced by granulosa cells of the pre-antral and small antral follicles and AMH levels decline with age. AMH level, especially in comparison with FSH level, was considered to be very stable across the menstrual cycle, but more recent studies have shown a slight decrease in AMH concentrations in the luteal phase [56,57]. Moreover, unlike other tests of ovarian reserve, such as AFC and FSH, it has sufficient specificity and sensitivity [58]. AMH concentration correlates with age and AFC" // Leader and Baker 2014:"Hundreds of clinical studies confirm that adding serum AMH testing to a complete ovarian assessment provides a powerful tool to help provide better healthcare for women. The benefits of this testing can optimize fertility treatments; help lead to earlier diagnoses of PCOS, POI, POF, and certain autoimmune conditions; provide the opportunity for better planning for procreation and menopause; and allow for better medical decision-making by monitoring ovarian damage from exposures to medical or surgical therapies. Although challenges with variability in AMH results make the provided practical steps a prerequisite for appropriate interpretation of the testing, the clinical benefits of testing more than justify this additional effort." We have a great post on the science behind ovarian reserve testing here: https://modernfertility.com/blog/ovarianreserve/

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#39

Post by shouldifakeit »

aaffttoonn wrote: post #38
shouldifakeit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I repeat: you’re misleading women by telling them you can tell them ‘how many eggs they have.’ (These are the words you use on your website) There is no way to count the number of eggs exactly but your statements seem to suggest you do this. This is just wrong - the best you can do is give a very wide range. Also you say AMH levels are well validated as a proxy for ovarian reserve - the science on this is far from wh…

Thanks for the feedback on the AMH language. We are always trying to find the best way to simplify the science. In regards to AMH, great question! AMH is known by the clinical community as the best marker for ovarian reserve. I know everyone doesn't have access to peer reviewed journals so here are a few quotes: Podfigurna et al 2017: "AMH level is recognized to be the one of the most reliable markers of ovarian rese…

> We are always trying to find the best way to simplify the science.

Please don't.

Just be honest and try to actually solve the problem of explaining science in layman terms rather than doing away with the explanations and complexity altogether.

Re: Modern Fertility (YC S17) is a proactive way to test fertility at home

#40

Post by seehafer »

daxorid wrote: post #18
Thiez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm aware male fertility decreases a bit with age, but there's no such thing as menopause and ovulation for men. So I doubt there is as much of a market for a male version. Besides, our male egos are way too fragile to risk learning we have fertility problems ;-) Also your hormones may be fine, but your sperm can still be bad, e.g. your testicles can't get too warm.

> So I doubt there is as much of a market for a male version Sperm count has been cut in half in the last 40 years in the West. Sperm motility and morphology has also seen precipitous declines, along with increasing DNA fragmentation issues. Male factor infertility is definitely a problem, but even attempting to discuss environmental estrogens is "men's rights activism" so we ignore it. To the extreme psychological d…

There’s a reason the alt-righters have gotten so far with using the term “soy” as an insult.
Post reply on HN