Introduction
Women’s health continues to lag behind other clinical areas in the translation of laboratory diagnostics into day-to-day preventive care. International bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health have therefore prioritised innovation in fertility and pregnancy monitoring, infection control, oncologic screening, and menopause-related bone loss. Converging advances in soft electronics, microfluidics, lateral-flow immunoassays, and real-time analytics are beginning to close this gap, yet their uptake is constrained by uneven validation, opaque regulatory requirements, and persistent inequities in access. The following review synthesises recent evidence on emerging wearables and point-of-care (PoC) diagnostics across five high-burden domains, evaluates performance and usability, and maps remaining scientific and implementation challenges.

1. Fertility and Pregnancy Monitoring
1.1 Hormone and biometric sensing
Skin-interfaced electrochemical sensors have achieved analytical limits of detection for oestradiol down to 0.14 pM, mirroring serum concentrations across the menstrual cycle [1]. In longitudinal community studies, multimodal wrist or ring devices combining temperature, heart-rate variability (HRV), and respiratory rate predicted the fertile window with ~90 % accuracy [2, 3]. Prospective validation shows ovulation timing errors below one day in more than 70 % of cycles [4]. However, most cohorts to date are small and racially homogeneous, and few trials enrol transgender men or non-binary users who menstruate.

1.2 Pregnancy vitals and metabolic complications
Smart bracelets and rings capture gestational trajectories in HRV, breathing rate, and wrist-skin temperature with high within-subject reproducibility, but algorithm drift after 30 weeks’ gestation remains unquantified [5, 6]. For gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), PoC glucose meters (HemoCue 201 RT) demonstrated closer agreement with isotope-dilution mass spectrometry than central-laboratory hexokinase assays, potentially reducing GDM over-diagnosis [7]. Microfluidic paper-based devices have extended the traditional pregnancy test into semi-quantitative human chorionic gonadotrophin assays [8] and are being adapted for placental growth factor and glycated albumin [9]. None of these platforms have yet completed FDA 510(k) clearance, partly because accepted surrogate end-points for pre-eclampsia or GDM risk reduction are lacking [10].

Usability and equity Sensor bracelets are generally well accepted in free-living conditions [11], but continuous Bluetooth streaming presupposes smartphone and broadband access—still scarce in many low-income settings [12]. Privacy concerns around reproductive data have escalated after changes in U.S. abortion law, underscoring the need for on-device encryption and differential-privacy layers during cloud synchronisation [13, 14].

2. Vaginal Infections and Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)
ASSURED-compliant molecular cartridges now deliver <30-min nucleic-acid amplification for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, and trichomoniasis with sensitivities >95 % [15, 16]. Within the VALHUDES framework, the Xpert HPV assay on self-collected vaginal swabs achieved sensitivity and specificity statistically equivalent to clinician specimens for CIN 2+ detection [17]. Tampon-based self-sampling further improves user preference, with 90 % favouring home collection over clinic visits [18].

Prototype intravaginal rings integrating pH and conductivity microsensors are technically feasible but lack peer-reviewed accuracy data; human-centred design studies highlight discomfort with current form factors and the need for culturally tailored instructions [19].

Barriers in LMICs Cost per molecular cartridge (≈ US$10–15) and cold-chain requirements restrict rural deployment. Smartphone-read lateral-flow strips could mitigate these barriers if ongoing efforts to improve analytical sensitivity via advanced labels succeed [20].

3. Gynecologic Cancers
3.1 Cervical cancer: self-collection and AI cytology
Meta-analyses of >70 000 women report κ > 0.80 between self-swabs and clinician samples for high-risk HPV [21]. AI-assisted cytology now processes whole-slide images at near-real-time speeds, elevating sensitivity for CIN 2+ from 88 % to 94–97 % compared with manual review while maintaining specificity [22, 23]. Implementation pilots in China and Japan show that co-testing with AI triage reduces laboratory workload by >50 % without sacrificing diagnostic yield [24].

3.2 Ovarian and endometrial cancer: liquid biopsy and microfluidics
Microfluidic chips isolating exosomal miRNA panels reach AUROCs of 0.86–0.93 in case–control studies [25]. Multi-omics assays combining cfDNA methylation with protein markers improved sensitivity for early-stage disease to 82 % at 97 % specificity in the prospective PERCEIVE-I trial [26]. Translation is slowed by biomarker heterogeneity and the absence of validated surrogate outcomes for accelerated approval [27].

4. Breast Cancer
4.1 Imaging-based wearables
A conformable honey-comb ultrasound patch acquired whole-breast B-mode images with lesion detection concordant with handheld ultrasound in first-in-human testing [28, 29]. Stretchable ultrasound arrays under development promise continuous, operator-independent surveillance [30]. AI-enhanced handheld probes classify masses with AUC ≥ 0.84 but require validation in dense breasts and across skin tones [31].

4.2 Liquid biopsy and thermal sensing
Point-of-care centrifugal microfluidics detect circulating tumour DNA with ~70 % sensitivity for minimal residual disease [32]. Wearable thermodynamic monitors differentiate benign from malignant lesions with 84 % sensitivity in early trials [33]. Paper-based microRNA assays are being optimised for low-resource settings, yet batch-to-batch variability remains problematic [34].

Commercialisation hurdles Manufacturing costs for high-channel-count piezoelectric arrays and the lack of specific FDA guidance on wearable imaging devices impede scale-up [35].

5. Menopause-Related Bone Health
Portable quantitative ultrasound (QUS) devices measuring cortical thickness at the tibia or radius identify DXA-defined osteoporosis with 85–90 % sensitivity [36]. Advanced spectral analysis of femoral-neck ultrasound achieved 94.7 % diagnostic accuracy [37]. Longitudinal precision remains inferior to DXA; monitoring therapy-induced changes therefore still requires ≥24 months to reach significance [38]. Finger-prick lateral-flow assays for C-telopeptide and P1NP deliver semi-quantitative results in 15 min but need external calibration and have not entered routine care.

6. Cross-Cutting Enablers and Risks
6.1 AI/ML and data governance Federated-learning architectures permit model training on device-resident data, reducing privacy exposure [39]. Differential-privacy budgets must be adaptively tuned to avoid degrading predictive accuracy [40].

6.2 Bias and inclusivity Audit studies reveal that fertility algorithms trained on cisgender female datasets under-perform in transgender men by up to 20 % in cycle-phase prediction [41]. Intersectional frameworks recommend mandatory reporting of gender identity, skin tone, and device fit in validation trials [42].

6.3 Telemedicine integration Wearable data streams integrated into electronic health records via middleware (e.g., Validic, Xealth) improve remote decision-making but raise medico-legal questions around automated alerts [43]. Early evidence suggests high acceptability of video-based mental-health care among African American women, underscoring the importance of culturally sensitive telehealth design [44].

7. Equity, Cost, and Regulatory Landscape
Payer coverage for digital biomonitoring devices is fragmented, with many U.S. plans classifying wearables as "lifestyle" items despite ACA preventive-service mandates [45]. The FDA’s Digital Health Software Pre-Cert pilot and recent draft guidance on adaptive algorithms offer a pathway, yet performance metrics for hormone sensors or wearable ultrasound remain undefined [46]. European MDR provisions similarly lack harmonised standards, leading to divergent evidence expectations across member states.

8. Unmet Needs and Future Directions
Standardised validation frameworks should encompass analytical accuracy, clinical validity, and usability across diverse skin tones, BMI categories, and gender identities. Large, multi-site pragmatic trials are needed to benchmark endpoints such as continuous oestradiol trends or home QUS metrics against hard outcomes (e.g., time-to-pregnancy, fracture incidence). Interoperable data standards and value-based reimbursement models could accelerate payer adoption. Finally, co-design with under-served communities is essential to ensure that biomonitoring technologies reduce rather than widen existing health disparities.

Conclusion
Wearable and PoC technologies are poised to remodel women’s health from episodic, clinic-bound testing to continuous, personalised care. Analytical performance for hormone sensing, STI detection, and imaging wearables now approaches clinical thresholds, and AI-assisted analytics can offset workforce shortages in cytology and radiology. Nonetheless, regulatory ambiguity, cost barriers, privacy risks, and inclusivity gaps temper immediate impact. Multidisciplinary coordination—spanning engineers, clinicians, regulators, ethicists, and community stakeholders—will be required to realise the full potential of these innovations for all women and gender-diverse populations.

References
----------
[1] Cui Ye, Minqiang Wang, Jihong Min, Roland Yingjie Tay, Heather Lukas, Juliane R Sempionatto, Jiahong Li, Changhao Xu, Wei Gao (2024). A wearable aptamer nanobiosensor for non-invasive female hormone monitoring.. PMID: 37770648.
[2] Brianna Mae Goodale, Mohaned Shilaih, Lisa Falco, Franziska Dammeier, Györgyi Hamvas, Brigitte Leeners (2019). Wearable Sensors Reveal Menses-Driven Changes in Physiology and Enable Prediction of the Fertile Window: Observational Study.. PMID: 30998226.
[3] Sarah C Cromack, Jessica R Walter (2024). Consumer wearables and personal devices for tracking the fertile window.. PMID: 38768799.
[4] Angela Niggli, Martina Rothenbühler, Maike Sachs, Brigitte Leeners (2023). Can Wrist-Worn Medical Devices Correctly Identify Ovulation?. PMID: 38139575.
[5] Verena Bossung, Adrian Singer, Tiara Ratz, Martina Rothenbühler, Brigitte Leeners, Nina Kimmich (2023). Changes in Heart Rate, Heart Rate Variability, Breathing Rate, and Skin Temperature throughout Pregnancy and the Impact of Emotions-A Longitudinal Evaluation Using a Sensor Bracelet.. PMID: 37514915.
[6] Linkun Liu, Yujian Pu, Junzhe Fan, Yu Yan, Wenpeng Liu, Kailong Luo, Yiwen Wang, Guanlin Zhao, Tupei Chen, Poenar Daniel Puiu, Hui Huang (2024). Wearable Sensors, Data Processing, and Artificial Intelligence in Pregnancy Monitoring: A Review.. PMID: 39409471.
[7] Karl Kristensen, Anne-Marie Wangel, Anastasia Katsarou, Nael Shaat, David Simmons, Helena Fadl, Kerstin Berntorp (2020). Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus with Point-of-Care Methods for Glucose versus Hospital Laboratory Method Using Isotope Dilution Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry as Reference.. PMID: 32280717.
[8] Mohammad Rahbar, Siyi Zou, Mahroo Baharfar, Guozhen Liu (2021). A Customized Microfluidic Paper-Based Platform for Colorimetric Immunosensing: Demonstrated via hCG Assay for Pregnancy Test.. PMID: 34940231.
[9] Jinglun Li, Ko-Wei Chang, Chih-Hung Wang, Ching-Hsuan Yang, Shu-Chu Shiesh, Gwo-Bin Lee (2016). On-chip, aptamer-based sandwich assay for detection of glycated hemoglobins via magnetic beads.. PMID: 26797251.
[10] Olof Stephansson, Anna Sandström (2024). Can short- and long-term maternal and infant risks linked to hypertension and diabetes during pregnancy be reduced by therapy?. PMID: 39045893.
[11] Alison K Nulty, Elizabeth Chen, Amanda L Thompson (Unknown year). The Ava bracelet for collection of fertility and pregnancy data in free-living conditions: An exploratory validity and acceptability study.. PMID: 35295766.
[12] Osagie Ebekozien, Kathryn Fantasia, Farnoosh Farrokhi, Ashutosh Sabharwal, David Kerr (2024). Technology and health inequities in diabetes care: How do we widen access to underserved populations and utilize technology to improve outcomes for all?. PMID: 38291977.
[13] Najd Alfawzan, Markus Christen (2023). The future of FemTech ethics & privacy - a global perspective.. PMID: 37891591.
[14] Reynardo Tjhin, Muhammad Sajjad Akbar, Clement Canonne, Rabia Bashir (2025). Analysis, Design, and Implementation of a User-Friendly Differential Privacy Application.. PMID: 40096122.
[15] Charlotte A Gaydos, Yukari C Manabe, Johan H Melendez (2021). A Narrative Review of Where We Are With Point-of-Care Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing in the United States.. PMID: 34110728.
[16] Ashleigh N Riegler, Natalie Larsen, Megan H Amerson-Brown (2023). Point-of-Care Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections.. PMID: 37169442.
[17] Ardashel Latsuzbaia, Davy Vanden Broeck, Severien Van Keer, Steven Weyers, Gilbert Donders, Jean Doyen, Wiebren Tjalma, Philippe De Sutter, Alex Vorsters, Marc Arbyn (2023). Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Xpert HPV Assay on Vaginal Self-Samples and Cervical Clinician-Taken Samples within the VALHUDES Framework.. PMID: 37354994.
[18] Valentina Milanova, Iva Lazarova, Kalina Mihaylova, Michelle Gomes, Teodora Georgieva, Jan Multmeier (2025). Efficacy and acceptability of a self-collected medical grade tampon as a novel vaginal sample collection tool for the detection of HPV and STIs.. PMID: 40133975.
[19] Fezile Khumalo, Jo-Ann S Passmore, Monalisa Manhanzva, Bahiah Meyer, Menna Duyver, Micaela Lurie, Ramla F Tanko, Lindi Masson (2023). Shifting the power: scale-up of access to point-of-care and self-testing for sexually transmitted infections in low-income and middle-income settings.. PMID: 36753705.
[20] Kobra Omidfar, Fatemeh Riahi, Soheila Kashanian (2023). Lateral Flow Assay: A Summary of Recent Progress for Improving Assay Performance.. PMID: 37754072.
[21] Hyun-Woong Cho, Sung Ryul Shim, Jae Kwan Lee, Jin Hwa Hong (2022). Accuracy of human papillomavirus tests on self-collected urine versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. PMID: 34783207.
[22] Heling Bao, Xiaorong Sun, Yi Zhang, Baochuan Pang, Hua Li, Liang Zhou, Fengpin Wu, Dehua Cao, Jian Wang, Bojana Turic, Linhong Wang (2020). The artificial intelligence-assisted cytology diagnostic system in large-scale cervical cancer screening: A population-based cohort study of 0.7 million women.. PMID: 32697872.
[23] Jue Wang, Yunfang Yu, Yujie Tan, Huan Wan, Nafen Zheng, Zifan He, Luhui Mao, Wei Ren, Kai Chen, Zhen Lin, Gui He, Yongjian Chen, Ruichao Chen, Hui Xu, Kai Liu, Qinyue Yao, Sha Fu, Yang Song, Qingyu Chen, Lina Zuo, Liya Wei, Jin Wang, Nengtai Ouyang, Herui Yao (2024). Artificial intelligence enables precision diagnosis of cervical cytology grades and cervical cancer.. PMID: 38778014.
[24] Hiroyuki Fujiwara, Yuji Takei, Yasushi Saga, Seung Chik Jwa, Akiyo Taneichi, Takahiro Koyanagi, Yoshifumi Takahashi, Suzuyo Takahashi, Kohei Tamura, Miki Shinohara, Mitsuaki Suzuki (2025). Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with cytology and human papillomavirus co-testing: A 12-year retrospective study in Oyama district, Japan.. PMID: 39903953.
[25] Yingfeng Zhang, Libi Tian (2024). Advances and challenges in the use of liquid biopsy in gynaecological oncology.. PMID: 39492906.
[26] Zheng Feng, Huijuan Ge, Jingshu Wang, Yanan Wang, Xiaoran Sun, Bo Yang, Siyu Cao, Chenlian Quan, Qinhao Guo, Yusheng Han, Feidie Duan, Fang Liu, Jing Zhao, Guoqiang Wang, Yuzi Zhang, Shangli Cai, Xiaohua Wu, Hao Wen (2025). Performance of Liquid Biopsy-Based Multi-Omics Biomarkers for Early Detection of Gynecological Malignancies: A Prospective Study (PERCEIVE-I).. PMID: 40178300.
[27] Canio Martinelli, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Sharon Raffaella Burk, Maria Cuomo, Vrunda Satasiya, Housem Kacem, Simone Braccia, Giulio Mazzarotti, Irene Miriello, Manuela Nana Tchamou, Stefano Restaino, Martina Arcieri, Alice Poli, Veronica Tius, Silvana Parisi, Stefano Pergolizzi, Giuseppe Iatì, Chiara Conti Nibali, Cristina Pizzimenti, Ludovica Pepe, Antonio Ieni, Salvatore Cortellino, Antonio Giordano (2025). Liquid biopsy in gynecological cancers: a translational framework from molecular insights to precision oncology and clinical practice.. PMID: 40340939.
[28] Mark T Burgess, Jill Gluskin, Katja Pinker (2023). From bedside to portable and wearable: development of a conformable ultrasound patch for deep breast tissue imaging.. PMID: 37766480.
[29] Wenya Du, Lin Zhang, Emma Suh, Dabin Lin, Colin Marcus, Lara Ozkan, Avani Ahuja, Sara Fernandez, Ikra Iftekhar Shuvo, David Sadat, Weiguo Liu, Fei Li, Anantha P Chandrakasan, Tolga Ozmen, Canan Dagdeviren (2023). Conformable ultrasound breast patch for deep tissue scanning and imaging.. PMID: 37506210.
[30] Hao Huang, Ray S Wu, Muyang Lin, Sheng Xu (2024). Emerging Wearable Ultrasound Technology.. PMID: 37878424.
[31] Zi-Han Yu, Yu-Ting Hong, Chen-Pin Chou (2024). Enhancing Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Nomogram Model Integrating AI Ultrasound and Clinical Factors.. PMID: 38897841.
[32] Xiaofen Zhang, Shaoqing Ju, Xudong Wang, Hui Cong (2019). Advances in liquid biopsy using circulating tumor cells and circulating cell-free tumor DNA for detection and monitoring of breast cancer.. PMID: 31190187.
[33] Vinitha Sree S, Rob Royea, Kevin J Buckman, Matt Benardis, Jim Holmes, Ronald L Fletcher, Ng Eyk, U Rajendra Acharya, Joshua D I Ellenhorn (2020). An introduction to the Cyrcadia Breast Monitor: A wearable breast health monitoring device.. PMID: 33007593.
[34] Giulia Moro, Chiara Dalle Fratte, Nicola Normanno, Federico Polo, Stefano Cinti (2023). Point-of-Care Testing for the Detection of MicroRNAs: Towards Liquid Biopsy on a Chip.. PMID: 37672490.
[35] Jaime K Devine, Lindsay P Schwartz, Steven R Hursh (2022). Technical, Regulatory, Economic, and Trust Issues Preventing Successful Integration of Sensors into the Mainstream Consumer Wearables Market.. PMID: 35408345.
[36] J P Karjalainen, O Riekkinen, H Kröger (2018). Pulse-echo ultrasound method for detection of post-menopausal women with osteoporotic BMD.. PMID: 29460101.
[37] Sergio Casciaro, Marco Peccarisi, Paola Pisani, Roberto Franchini, Antonio Greco, Tommaso De Marco, Antonella Grimaldi, Laura Quarta, Eugenio Quarta, Maruizio Muratore, Francesco Conversano (2016). An Advanced Quantitative Echosound Methodology for Femoral Neck Densitometry.. PMID: 27033331.
[38] O Sahota, P San, S A Cawte, D Pearson, D J Hosking (2000). A comparison of the longitudinal changes in quantitative ultrasound with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: the four-year effects of hormone replacement therapy.. PMID: 10663359.
[39] Manzoor Ahmed Khan, Najla Alkaabi (2021). Rebirth of Distributed AI-A Review of eHealth Research.. PMID: 34372236.
[40] Junyuan Hong, Zhangyang Wang, Jiayu Zhou (2022). Dynamic Privacy Budget Allocation Improves Data Efficiency of Differentially Private Gradient Descent.. PMID: 37084074.
[41] Anagha Joshi (2024). Big data and AI for gender equality in health: bias is a big challenge.. PMID: 39479339.
[42] Kelly McGlothen-Bell, Madelyne Z Greene, Grayson Hunt, Allison D Crawford (2023). Intersectional Examination of Gender-Inclusive Care and Women's Health.. PMID: 37699533.
[43] Catherine Dinh-Le, Rachel Chuang, Sara Chokshi, Devin Mann (2019). Wearable Health Technology and Electronic Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions.. PMID: 31512582.
[44] Terika McCall, Todd Schwartz, Saif Khairat (2019). Acceptability of Telemedicine to Help African American Women Manage Anxiety and Depression.. PMID: 31438014.
[45] Dania Palanker, Karen Davenport (2016). Women's Health Coverage Since the ACA: Improvements for Most, But Insurer Exclusions Put Many at Risk.. PMID: 27483555.
[46] Elisa Lievevrouw, Luca Marelli, Ine Van Hoyweghen (2022). The FDA's standard-making process for medical digital health technologies: co-producing technological and organizational innovation.. PMID: 34002115.