Cited by 192Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsReproductive Biology and FertilityAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos

Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K., Wells, D.·2014·Molecular Human Reproduction

Abstract

Morphological assessments are the main way in which fertility clinics select in vitro generated embryo(s) for transfer to the uterus. However, it is widely acknowledged that the microscopic appearance of an embryo is only weakly correlated with its viability. Furthermore, the extent to which morphology is affected by aneuploidy, a genetic defect common in human preimplantation embryos, remains unclear. Aneuploidy is of great relevance to embryo selection as it represents one of the most important causes of implantation failure and miscarriage. The current study aimed to examine whether morphological appearance can assist in identifying embryos at risk of aneuploidy. Additionally, the data produced sheds light on how chromosomal anomalies impact development from the cleavage to the blastocyst stage. A total of 1213 embryos were examined. Comprehensive chromosome analysis was combined with well-established criteria for the assessment of embryo morphology. At the cleavage stage, chromosome abnormalities were common even amongst embryos assigned the best morphological scores, indicating that aneuploidy has little effect on microscopic appearance at fixed time points up until Day 3 of development. However, at the blastocyst stage aneuploidies were found to be significantly less common among embryos of optimal morphological quality, while such abnormalities were overrepresented amongst embryos considered to be of poor morphology. Despite the link between aneuploidy and blastocyst a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/molehr/gat073

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rates of aneuploidy are known to be significantly higher at the cleavage stage compared to the blastocyst.

    “Because rates of aneuploidy are known to be significantly higher at the cleavage stage compared to the blastocyst (18)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K., & Wells, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Fragouli, E.
Venue
Molecular Human Reproduction
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
117-126
ISSN
  • 1360-9947 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2407
OpenAlex
W2142766753
Cited by
189
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8
FWCI
9.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Keywords
embryo morphology, aneuploidy, preimplantation embryo, cleavage stage, blastocyst, embryo selection, chromosomal abnormalities, Down syndrome, sex ratio, embryo growth rate, implantation failure
MeSH terms
Aneuploidy, Blastocyst, Chromosomes, Human, Embryo Transfer, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Male, Microscopy, Embryo Implantation, Pregnancy, Research Design, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Preimplantation Diagnosis, Cytogenetic Analysis, Comparative Genomic Hybridization

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