Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27584609›Full record

ReviewJBRA assisted reproduction2016

Methods for assessing the quality of mammalian embryos: How far we are from the gold standard?

José C Rocha, Felipe Passalia, Felipe D Matos, Marc P Maserati, Mayra F Alves, Tamie G de Almeida, Bruna L Cardoso, Andrea C Basso, Marcelo F G Nogueira

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Pre-Implantation Bovine Embryo Evaluation-From Optics to Omics and Beyond.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

José C RochaDepartment of Biological Science, Faculty of Sciences and Languages, São Paulo State University (UNESP).
Felipe PassaliaDepartment of Biological Science, Faculty of Sciences and Languages, São Paulo State University (UNESP).
Felipe D MatosInstitut de Biologie de l École Normale Supérieure de Paris, Paris, France.
Marc P MaseratiIn Vitro Brasil SA - Mogi Mirim, Brazil.
Mayra F AlvesIn Vitro Brasil SA - Mogi Mirim, Brazil.
Tamie G de AlmeidaIn Vitro Brasil SA - Mogi Mirim, Brazil.
Bruna L CardosoIn Vitro Brasil SA - Mogi Mirim, Brazil.
Andrea C BassoIn Vitro Brasil SA - Mogi Mirim, Brazil.
Marcelo F G NogueiraDepartment of Biological Science, Faculty of Sciences and Languages, São Paulo State University (UNESP).
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRInstitut de Biologie de l'École Normale Supérieure · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphological embryo classification is of great importance for many laboratory techniques, from basic research to the ones applied to assisted reproductive technology. However, the standard classification method for both human and cattle embryos, is based on quality parameters that reflect the overall morphological quality of the embryo in cattle, or the quality of the individual embryonic structures, more relevant in human embryo classification. This assessment method is biased by the subjectivity of the evaluator and even though several guidelines exist to standardize the classification, it is not a method capable of giving reliable and trustworthy results. Latest approaches for the improvement of quality assessment include the use of data from cellular metabolism, a new morphological grading system, development kinetics and cleavage symmetry, embryo cell biopsy followed by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, zona pellucida birefringence, ion release by the embryo cells and so forth. Nowadays there exists a great need for evaluation methods that are practical and non-invasive while being accurate and objective. A method along these lines would be of great importance to embryo evaluation by embryologists, clinicians and other professionals who work with assisted reproductive technology. Several techniques shows promising results in this sense, one being the use of digital images of the embryo as basis for features extraction and classification by means of artificial intelligence techniques (as genetic algorithms and artificial neural networks). This process has the potential to become an accurate and objective standard for embryo quality assessment.

Indexed as

Embryo, MammalianImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproductive Techniques, AssistedAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceCattleEmbryo TransferHumansMiceMicroscopyartificial intelligenceEmbryo quality assessmentmammalian embryomorphological evaluation

Identifiers

PMID27584609
PMCPMC5264381
OpenAlexW2508504312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.