ArticleScientific reports2025
The association of embryo developmental rate and morphological grading with neonatal sex ratio.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Embryo developmental rate and morphological grading are strongly associated with implantation potential. However, it remains unclear whether these parameters influence neonatal sex, which may be affected by embryo selection criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of embryo developmental rate and morphological grading on neonatal sex. This single-center retrospective study included 4278 singleton live births resulting from single embryos transfers, conducted between 2011 and 2024. Binary logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between embryo developmental rate, morphological grading, and neonate sex. A significantly higher proportion of male live births was observed in blastocyst-stage transfers (55.3%) compared to cleavage-stage transfers (50.9%; P = 0.005). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that day 5 blastocyst transfers were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of male neonates compared to day 3 embryo transfers (Adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.21; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.02-1.43; P = 0.027). Furthermore, day 5 blastocysts with expansion stages 4 and 5 showed 2.30-fold and 2.71-fold increased probabilities of male neonates, respectively, compared to expansion stage 3 blastocysts (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.44-3.68; aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.54-4.77; P = 0.001). Additionally, TE grades B and C blastocysts demonstrated 39% and 57% reduced probabilities of male neonates, respectively, compared to TE grade A blastocysts in day 5 transfers (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79; aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28-0.65; P < 0.001). In conclusion, the blastocyst transfer may influence neonatal sex ratios, particularly in day 5 blastocysts with expansion stages 4-5 and high TE scores.
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.