ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2021
Rate of Post-Fertilization Mitotic Activity Predicts Embryonic Competence via Next Generation Sequencing: An Analysis of 39,301 Cleavage Stage Embryos.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Day-3 embryo cell number on pregnancy, obstetric and perinatal outcomes in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Impact of rapidly cleaving embryos on blastocyst formation and single-blastocyst transfer outcomes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Association between pretransfer cleavage-stage blastomere dynamics and pregnancy outcomes in fresh single embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Developmental competence and neonatal outcomes of nonpronuclear zygotes following single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers using propensity score matching analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the association between cleavage stage development, embryonic competence, and euploidy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with subsequent next generation sequencing.
methodsThe retrospective cohort study included patients at an academic fertility center who underwent IVF with at least one cleavage stage embryo from 2016 to 2019. Embryos were analyzed as slow (<6 cells), intermediate (6-8 cells), or fast (>8 cells); day 3 cell count was also analyzed as a continuous variable. Primary outcomes were blastulation rate, biopsied blastocyst rate, and euploid rate. Odds of blastulation, biopsy, and euploidy were also calculated. Additionally, we modeled the predicted probability of an embryo reaching blastulation, biopsy, and euploidy based on cleavage stage development.
resultsWhen compared with intermediate and slow cohorts, fast cleaving embryos had significantly higher rates of blastulation (82.70% vs. 75.13 vs. 42.48%), biopsy (55.04% vs. 44.00% vs. 14.98%), and euploidy (50.65% vs. 47.93% vs. 48.05%). After adjustment for covariates, there was a significant association between cleavage stage development and odds of blastulation (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.29-1.48), biopsy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.51), and euploidy (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.17). Finally, we observed significant associations between cleavage stage development and predicted probability of reaching blastulation (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.32), biopsy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.22-1.26), and euploidy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04).
conclusionsCleavage stage embryos with greater mitotic activity perform as well as or better than intermediate or slower cleaving embryos. Rapidly cleaving embryos have high rates of euploidy and significant clinical potential.
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.