Application of a Naegele’s Formula Adapted to the Long Count Mayan Calendar to Calculate the Expected Date of Birth During a Leap Year

Authors

  • Ugo Indraccolo Hospital of Gubbio and Gualdo Tadino Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48047/HM.V12.I2.2026.1-14

Keywords:

Birth date, Naegele's formula, Maya calendar, Pregnancy

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether the Naegele formula applied to the Mayan calendar can improve the accuracy of due date prediction.

Methods: A database of pregnant women who gave birth during the leap year 2016 was analyzed (post hoc analysis). The date of the last menstruation (confirmed by ultrasound) was converted to the Mayan date using an online converter. The Naegele formula was adapted to the Mayan calendar and applied to the date of the last menstruation on the Mayan calendar. The resulting Mayan calendar date was converted back to the Gregorian calendar. Discrepancies between the actual due date and that predicted by the traditional Naegele formula and by adding 280 days to the last menstruation were compared with the discrepancies obtained by applying the Mayan calendar-based formula.

Results: The pregnancy duration predicted by the Mayan calendar-based formula better approximates the actual pregnancy duration than other methods in the entire database of 601 cases. In normal pregnancies, the Naegele formula deviates from the actual due date by an average of -0.982 days (±3.548), the Mayan calendar-based formula deviates from it by an average of -0.254 days (±3.481), while adding 280 days to the date of the last menstrual period deviates from it by an average of 0.247 days (±3.487) (p<0.001 for both comparisons). In further subgroup analyses, the Mayan calendar-based formula appears to be more accurate and equally precise than the other methods.

Conclusions: The Naegele formula adapted to the Mayan calendar improves the estimation of the expected due date compared to the Naegele’s formula.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Charlier P., Coppens Y. & Hassin J., 2022 – Is the duration of human pregnancy decreasing? A vision of Darwinian medicine. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 35: 806-808. doi:10.1080/14767058.2020.1731461

Baskett T.F. & Nagele F., 2000 – Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 107: 1433-1435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11661.x

Hunter L.A., 2009 – Issues in pregnancy dating: revisiting the evidence. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 54: 184-190. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.11.003

Lawson G.W., 2021 – Naegele's rule and the length of pregnancy – A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 61: 177-182. doi:10.1111/ajo.13253

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), 2013 – Definition of term pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/committee-opinion/articles/2013/11/definition-of-term-pregnancy.pdf (retrieved in March 2025).

Spong CY. Defining "term" pregnancy: recommendations from the Defining "Term" Pregnancy Workgroup. JAMA 2013;309:2445-2446. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.6235

Guerra F., 1964 – Maya Medicine. Medical History, 8: 31-43. doi:10.1017/S0025727300029070

Società Italiana di Ecografia Ostetrico Ginecologica (SIEOG), 2015 – Linee guida SIEOG. Edizione 2015. Società Italiana di Ecografia Ostetrico Ginecologica. https://www.sieog.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Linee-Guida-2015-x-sito1.pdf (retrieved in March 2025).

Indraccolo U., Calabrese S., Di Iorio R. et al., 2010 – Impact of the medicalization of labor on mode of delivery. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 37: 273-277.

Sriram S., Almutairi F.M. & Albadrani M., 2024 – Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13: 6629. doi:10.3390/jcm13226629

Ecochard R., Leiva R., Bouchard T.P. et al., 2024 – The menstrual cycle is influenced by weekly and lunar rhythms. Fertility and Sterility, 121: 651-659. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.12.009

Gudziunaite S. & Moshammer H., 2022 – Temporal patterns of weekly births and conceptions predicted by meteorology, seasonal variation, and lunar phases. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 134: 538-545. doi:10.1007/s00508-022-02038-7

Bergsjø P., Denman D.W., Hoffman H.J. et al., 1990 – Duration of human singleton pregnancy: a population-based study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 69: 197-207. doi:10.3109/00016349009028681

Derraik J.G.B., Savage T., Hofman P.L. et al., 2016 – Shorter mothers have shorter pregnancies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 36: 1-2. doi:10.3109/01443615.2015.1006595

Gaspani A., 2013 – Qualche considerazione sulla costante di correlazione tra il lungo computo Maya ed il calendario occidentale. Altre Modernità, 2013: 37–44. doi:10.13130/2035-7680/3066

Kennett D.J., Hajdas I., Culleton B.J. et al., 2013 – Correlating the ancient Maya and modern European calendars with high-precision AMS ^14^C dating. Scientific Reports, 3: 1597. doi:10.1038/srep01597

Downloads

Published

2026-10-12

How to Cite

Indraccolo, U. (2026). Application of a Naegele’s Formula Adapted to the Long Count Mayan Calendar to Calculate the Expected Date of Birth During a Leap Year. History of Medicine, 12(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.48047/HM.V12.I2.2026.1-14