ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Sequencing platforms influence segmental aneuploidy and cumulative live birth rate: A single-center cohort study.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. 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.
- Oocyte aging in focus: Environmental and endogenous stressors driving reproductive potential decline.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Considerations on the in vivo relevance of graphene oxide-induced oocyte toxicity.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether sequencing platforms affect genetic testing results and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 506 cycles with female age ≤ 40 years old conducted at a single reproductive center. These cycles were divided into two groups (Platform A and Platform B) based on the sequencing platforms. Primary outcomes were CLBR. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing results.
resultsPlatform A exhibited lower euploidy rates (49.46% vs. 55.75%; P = 0.007) and higher aneuploidy rates (36.92% vs. 30.73%; P = 0.005). The increased aneuploidy in Platform A was driven by a higher segmental aneuploidy (SA) rate (11.44% vs. 6.30%; P < 0.001), whereas whole-chromosomal aneuploidy (WA) rates were similar (25.48% vs. 24.43%; P = 0.607). Platform A demonstrated a lower genetically transferable blastocysts (GTB) rate (53.68% vs. 61.80%; P < 0.001) and higher cycle cancellation rate (21.65% vs. 11.86%; P = 0.003). Although CLBR per FET cycle was comparable (77.63% vs. 79.27%; P = 0.692), CLBR per biopsied cycle was significantly higher for Platform B (60.82% vs. 69.87%; P = 0.036). The subgroup analysis in < 38 years demonstrated consistent results. Multivariate regression confirmed that platform selection independently impacted CLBR (R
conclusionThis study provides evidence that sequencing platform selection significantly influences PGT-A genetic testing results and clinical outcomes, as our analysis revealed substantial platform-dependent variability in SA detection rates and CLBR.
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.