ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Nuclear error phenotypes at the first mitosis predict cleavage-stage outcomes but not blastocyst competence.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nuclear errors (NE) observed at the two-cell stage reflect early mitotic disturbances, but their clinical relevance for embryo implantation and live birth remains un-clear. We investigated whether nuclear status at the two-cell stage predicts pregnancy and live birth outcomes following cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 3,793 single embryo transfers with clinical outcomes performed at a university-affiliated reproductive medicine centre. Embryos were retrospectively assessed at the two-cell stage and classified as normal or exhibiting nuclear errors, further stratified by the number of affected blastomeres and by phenotype (multinucleation, micronucleation, split nuclei, or mixed errors). Live birth rate (LBR) was the primary outcome; pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates were secondary outcomes. Associations were evaluated using contingency analyses, regression models of nuclear error occurrence, and mixed-effects logistic regression analyses of clinical outcomes adjusted for maternal age, paternal age, fertilisation method, and patient-level clustering. Results: NE occurred in 24% of transferred embryos and were more frequent after ICSI than IVF (adjusted OR 1.74). In cleavage-stage transfers, NE were associated with reduced LBR compared with embryos without NE (23.2% vs. 34.8%). The clinical outcomes decreased with increased numbers of affected blastomeres. Micronucleation and split nuclei showed the poorest outcomes and remained adversely associated with reproductive outcomes after adjustment, whereas multinucleation was not detrimental. No association between NE and outcomes was observed after blastocyst transfers. Conclusions: Nuclear error phenotypes at the two-cell stage provided prognostic information relevant for cleavage-stage embryo transfer but had limited influence for blastocyst selection. Outcome differences associated with early nuclear abnormalities were no longer detectable among transferred blastocysts.
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.