ArticleHuman reproduction open2025
Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2025. 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.
- The potential, perils and pitfalls of Artificial intelligence (AI) in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- Index matching improves the imaging quality of 3D well-of-the-well dishes for embryo culture.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Article
- The effect of previous caesarean delivery on cumulative live birth rate in IVF/ICSI cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Reclaiming 'abnormal' embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: patients' perspectives on transferring embryos against prior institutional advice.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Embryo selection (ES) during IVF is expected to select the 'best' embryo(s) from among a cycle's embryo cohort and has been a core concept of IVF for over 40 years. However, among 36 492 articles on ES in a recent PubMed search, we were unable to locate even a single one questioning the concept that, beyond standard oocyte and embryo morphology, ES has remained an unproven hypothesis. In unselected patient populations, attempts at ES have universally, indeed, failed to improve cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates. The only benefit ES appears to offer is a marginal shortening in time to pregnancy, and even this benefit manifests only in best-prognosis patients with large oocyte and embryo numbers. Excluding
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.