Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization

Ziebe, S., Petersen, K., Lindenberg, S., Andersen, A. G., Gabrielsen, A., Andersen, A. N.·1997·Human Reproduction

Abstract

This retrospective study of 1001 in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles included a consecutive series of single transfers (n = 341), dual transfers (n = 410) and triple transfers (n = 250) where all the transferred embryos in each cycle were of identical quality score and identical cleavage stage. In our 2 day culture system, transfer of 4-cell embryos resulted in a significantly higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate (23 and 49%) compared with 2-cell embryos (12 and 22%) and 3-cell embryos (7 and 15%). Furthermore, the transfer of 4-cell embryos resulted in a significantly higher pregnancy rate compared with embryos that had cleaved beyond the 4-cell stage (28%). The implantation rate (21%) and pregnancy rate (43%) after transfer of embryos of score 1.0 were significantly higher than after transfer of embryos of score 2.0 (14 and 32% respectively). Transferring embryos of score 2.1 resulted in significantly higher implantation rates (26%) and similar pregnancy rates compared with score 1.0. Transferring embryos of score 2.2-3.0 resulted in a significantly lower implantation rate (5%) and pregnancy rate (15%). A striking finding was that embryos of quality score 2.0 had a significantly lower implantation rate compared with embryos of quality score 1.0 and 2.1 and a significantly lower pregnancy rate compared to embryos of quality score 1.0. We also found a lower implantation rate and pregnancy rate when transferring 3-cell embryos. These findings may indicate periods of increased sensitivity to damage during the cell cycle. In conclusion, these results substantiate the idea of the superiority of 4-cell embryos and demonstrate that minor amounts of fragments in the embryo may not be of any importance. These findings may call for a shift when weighing the two main morphological components (quality score and cleavage stage) in the sense that reaching a 4-cell cleavage stage even with the presence of a minor amount of fragments should be preferred to a 2-cell embryo with no fragments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1545

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Ziebe, S., Petersen, K., Lindenberg, S., Andersen, A. G., Gabrielsen, A., & Andersen, A. N.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
1997-07-01
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
1545-1549
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2169673521
Cited by
474
References
9
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/12.7.1545
The paper
Ziebe, S., Petersen, K., Lindenberg, S., Andersen, A. G., Gabrielsen, A., & Andersen, A. N. (1997). Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.7.1545

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.