ArticleF&S reports2025
Introducing time-lapse for flexible embryo assessment in in vitro fertilization: implications for grading confidence and workflow efficiency.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of morphological, morphokinetics, cell-free DNA, microRNAs parameters to predict aneuploidy status of embryos.PloS one · 2026Article
- Time-Lapse Imaging in IVF: Bridging the Gap Between Promises and Clinical Realities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Does time-lapse make the grade?F&S reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare embryologists' confidence levels and grading concordance when assessing embryo morphology using time-lapse images vs. traditional direct observation under a microscope. Design: Prospective study. Subjects: Six embryologists on staff at the laboratory who ranged from junior to senior skillset levels. Exposure: None. Main Outcome Measures: Embryologists' confidence levels in morphology assessments, intraobserver agreement for embryo grading, and assessment duration when using time-lapse images compared with direct observation under microscopes. Results: From 6,435 morphology assessments across 714 embryos (62 cohorts), high-confidence levels were observed on day 5 for gradings using either direct observation (97.7%) or time-lapse images (94.6%), with no statistically significant difference. Confidence was consistently high (>85%) across days 1, 3, 6, and 7, with direct observation having higher confidence rate than time-lapse-based assessment on days 1 and 3. Intraobserver agreement between direct observation vs. time-lapse-based assessment showed good-to-excellent concordance (κ ≥ 0.60) except for blastocyst morphology grade (κ = 0.58). The highest agreement was observed for day 5-7 embryo disposition decisions, with 94.1% concordance (κ = 0.89). Assessment durations were comparable between the two grading methods. Conclusion: Embryologists maintained high confidence in morphology assessments using time-lapse systems, even under time constraints. Intraobserver agreement for embryo grading, assessed by comparing the same embryologist's gradings using time-lapse images vs. direct observation, was comparable to previously reported levels of agreement for traditional morphology gradings. These findings highlight the feasibility of flexible or remote assessments without disrupting embryo culture, enhancing workflow adaptability, and paving the way for advancements with artificial intelligence integration.
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.