ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences
Optimal Embryo Selection: The Irreplaceable Role of the Embryologist in an Age of Advancing Technology.
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- First cleavage signatures define a temporal trade-off and predict embryo fitness.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Could cleaved embryo morphology and morphokinetics be associated with prenatal and neonatal outcomes?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Time-lapse incubators allow for ongoing evaluation of embryos without culture condition disruption. The use of time-lapse incubation has been shown to improve outcomes either by improving overall conditions or providing additional information to aid in embryo selection for transfer. Time-lapse incubators can also utilise morphokinetic models to rank embryos based on morphokinetic parameters. We sought to compare a morphokinetic model for embryo comparison to traditional morphologic evaluation. Aims: The aim of the study is to compare a morphokinetic model for embryo comparison to traditional morphologic evaluation. Settings and Design: This is a retrospective cohort design. Materials and Methods: Embryos cultured in a time-lapse culture system that had traditional morphologic evaluation, morphokinetic modelling and known live birth outcomes were included in this study. Embryos with unknown competence were excluded, including when two embryos were transferred with a single live birth resulted. Statistical Analysis Used: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined for both the morphologic analysis and the morphokinetic model on culture day 3 and day 5. Using the ROC-determined cutoff that optimised both sensitivity and specificity, a binary outcome for each test was analysed using agreement statistics to determine if one method of embryo evaluation was superior to the other. Results: Morphological and morphokinetic grading were both predictive of embryo competence on days 3 and 5. However, on day 3, morphologic grading was superior to morphokinetic grading with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.66 ( Conclusion: Traditional morphology was noted to be a better diagnostic tool (higher AUC) on culture day 3 while a morphokinetic model was superior on day 5.
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.