ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Clarifying contradictions: transportability in 17OHP-C trials and preterm birth outcomes using doubly debiased machine learning.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the Meis et al. trial that identified a benefit of 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17OHP-C) in reducing the risk of recurrent preterm birth (PTB) (risk difference (RD) -18.6%; 95% CI, -28.2%, -9.2%), a confirmatory trial (PROLONG) identified no benefit of 17OHP-C (RD, 1.2%; 95% CI, -3.0%, 5.3%). The leading hypothesis is that the difference was due to the heterogeneity in PTB risk. We implemented state-of-the-art methods, using doubly debiased machine learning for transportability to investigate whether the conflicting trial results could be explained by measured differences between trial populations. The estimated RD when transporting the effect in Meis to the PROLONG trial population was -18.6% (95% CI, -55.9%, 8.8%) comparing 17OHP-C to placebo. The estimated RD when transporting PROLONG to Meis was 5.2% (95% CI, -17.3%, 18.1%) comparing 17OHP-C to placebo. Transporting from PROLONG to Meis did not recover the protective effect observed in Meis, which we hypothesize is due to a hidden violation of one or more causal assumptions for transportability, such as the presence of unmeasured effect measure modifiers. Transporting from Meis to PROLONG did not recover the null point estimate observed in PROLONG, though the confidence interval was wide. Future studies should explore effect heterogeneity by PTB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.