ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Development and validation of a prediction model for premature progesterone elevation during early-follicular phase long-acting GnRH-a long protocol.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles, premature progesterone elevation (PPE) on the HCG trigger day is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent their first IVF cycle at our center from January 2019 to December 2019 were included. All patients were treated with the EFLL protocol. Patients were randomly assigned to the training or validation cohort for nomogram development and testing at a ratio of 8:2. After excluding collinear variables, the remaining candidate predictors were screened by the LASSO regression model, and the nomogram was constructed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves with bootstrap were used to evaluate the performance of the nomogram. DCA was used to analyze the clinical efficacy of the model. Results: A total of 5193 cycles were included-4154 cycles in the training cohort and 1039 cycles in the validation cohort. The incidence of PPE in the training cohort was 20.51%. Multivariate logistic regression showed that BMI, basal FSH, basal progesterone (bP), AMH, AFC, total duration of Gn, total dosage of exogenous HMG, FSH and P on the 6th day of Gn were found to be independent influencing factors of PPE, and a nomogram model was constructed accordingly. The areas under the ROC curves of the training cohort and the validation cohort were 0.683 (95% CI = 0.663-0.702) and 0.622 (95% CI = 0.583-0.662), respectively. The calibration curve showed that the predicted risk of the model was in good agreement with the actual results in both cohorts. Decision curve analysis (DCA) demonstrated the clinical value of this nomogram. Conclusions: Our nomogram for estimating PPE demonstrates modest discriminative ability and may serve as a preliminary risk stratification tool in COS cycles. It may assist clinicians in identifying patients at higher risk of PPE, thereby informing clinical judgment.
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.