Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40001872›Full record

ArticleBiology2025

Twinning and Individuation: An Appraisal of the Current Model and Ethical Implications.

Francis J O'Keeffe, George L Mendz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Francis J O'KeeffeSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0632-9048
George L MendzSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4748-0860

Funding

School of Medicine, Sydney -The University of Notre Dame Australia R00020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discourses on human embryo experimentation often refer to monozygotic twinning and individuation. A criterion to establish regulations that guide human embryo research proposes that individuation is achieved once the embryo ceases to have the potential for dividing into two or more viable entities at about 15 days of gestational age. This standard is based on an updated version of a developmental model initially proposed by George Corner. A fundamental problem with this approach is the model's lack of sufficient evidence to explain adequately human embryo twinning and, consequently, to serve as a basis to establish appropriate ethical guidelines for embryo experimentation. In addition, subsequent formulations of Corner's model added an extension of blastomere totipotency to different moments of gestation, without a proper scientific basis. The model is also challenged by monozygotic twinnings that result in placental and amniotic arrangements incompatible with Corner's framework. Investigations into the physiology of fertilisation and of the zygote suggest that individuation may occur at a very early stage. An alternative description of monozygotic twinning may explain better sesquizygotic twinning events and serve to re-evaluate the individuation criterion. The study aims to investigate deficiencies in the embryology of this model and assess their ethical implications.

Indexed as

amniotic and chorionic arrangementsethics human embryo experimentationmonozygotic twinningsesquizygotic twinningtotipotency

Identifiers

PMID40001872
PMCPMC11851495

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.