ReviewBiology of reproduction2024
Ex ovo omnia-why don't we know more about egg quality via imaging?
Review in Biology of reproduction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxidative stress biomarkers in assisted reproductive technologies: From follicular redox biology to clinical translation.Redox biology · 2026Review
- Mitochondrial CaFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- A review of artificial intelligence applications in in vitro fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- Novel imaging and biophysical approaches to study tissue hydraulics in mammalian folliculogenesis.Biophysical reviews · 2024Review
- The quality of human eggs and its pre-IVF incubation.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining egg quality is the foremost challenge in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Although extensive advances have been made in multiple areas of ART over the last 40 years, oocyte quality assessment tools have not much evolved beyond standard morphological observation. The oocyte not only delivers half of the nuclear genetic material and all of the mitochondrial DNA to an embryo but also provides complete developmental support during embryonic growth. Oocyte mitochondrial numbers far exceed those of any somatic cell, yet little work has been done to evaluate the mitochondrial bioenergetics of an oocyte. Current standard oocyte assessment in in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers include the observation of oocytes and their surrounding cell complex (cumulus cells) via stereomicroscope or inverted microscope, which is largely primitive. Additional oocyte assessments include polar body grading and polarized light meiotic spindle imaging. However, the evidence regarding the aforementioned methods of oocyte quality assessment and IVF outcomes is contradictory and non-reproducible. High-resolution microscopy techniques have also been implemented in animal and human models with promising outcomes. The current era of oocyte imaging continues to evolve with discoveries in artificial intelligence models of oocyte morphology selection albeit at a slow rate. In this review, the past, current, and future oocyte imaging techniques will be examined with the goal of drawing attention to the gap which limits our ability to assess oocytes in real time. The implications of improved oocyte imaging techniques on patients undergoing IVF will be discussed as well as the need to develop point of care oocyte assessment testing in IVF labs.
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.