Literature DB >> 19493872

Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day?

Catherine Racowsky1, Lucila Ohno-Machado, Jihoon Kim, John D Biggers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine what characteristics should be recorded on which days to build a predictive model for selection of Day 3 embryos.
METHODS: Embryos failing to form a clinical sac or that formed a viable fetus (to > or =12 weeks), and transferred singly (n = 269) or in pairs (n = 1326) were scored for early cleavage and pronuclear status on Day 1, and cell number, fragmentation, and symmetry on Days 2 and 3, with number of nuclei per blastomere also recorded on Day 2. Seven candidate models were identified using a priori clinical knowledge and univariate analyses. Each model was fit on a training-set and evaluated on a test-set with resampling, with discrimination assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and calibration assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics.
RESULTS: Models built using Day 1, 2 or 3 scores independently on the 30 resampled data sets showed that Day 1 evaluations provided the poorest predictive value (median AUC = 0.683 versus 0.729 and 0.725, for Day 2 and 3). Combining information from Day 1, 2 and 3 marginally improved discrimination (median AUC = 0.737). Using the final Day 3 model fitted on the whole dataset, the median AUC was 0.732 (95% CI, 0.700-0.764), and 68.6% of embryos would be correctly classified with a cutoff probability equal to 0.3.
CONCLUSIONS: Day 2 or Day 3 evaluations alone are sufficient for morphological selection of cleavage stage embryos. The derived regression coefficients can be used prospectively in an algorithm to rank embryos for selection.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19493872      PMCID: PMC2727402          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  32 in total

1.  Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer.

Authors:  E Van Royen; K Mangelschots; D De Neubourg; M Valkenburg; M Van de Meerssche; G Ryckaert; W Eestermans; J Gerris
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme.

Authors:  C V Steer; C L Mills; S L Tan; S Campbell; R G Edwards
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  The relationship between embryo quality and the occurrence of multiple pregnancies.

Authors:  C Staessen; M Camus; N Bollen; P Devroey; A C Van Steirteghem
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Case-based reasoning in IVF: prediction and knowledge mining.

Authors:  I Jurisica; J Mylopoulos; J Glasgow; H Shapiro; R F Casper
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 5.326

5.  A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality.

Authors:  J M Cummins; T M Breen; K L Harrison; J M Shaw; L M Wilson; J F Hennessey
Journal:  J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf       Date:  1986-10

6.  Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers.

Authors:  C Giorgetti; P Terriou; P Auquier; E Hans; J L Spach; J Salzmann; R Roulier
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  The growth of human preimplantation embryos in vitro.

Authors:  R G Edwards; J M Purdy; P C Steptoe; D E Walters
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-10-15       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis increases the implantation rate in human in vitro fertilization by avoiding the transfer of chromosomally abnormal embryos.

Authors:  L Gianaroli; M C Magli; A P Ferraretti; A Fiorentino; J Garrisi; S Munné
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 9.  Relationships between the developmental potential of human in-vitro fertilization embryos and features describing the embryo, oocyte and follicle.

Authors:  R R Saith; A Srinivasan; D Michie; I L Sargent
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  1998 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 15.610

10.  Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  S Munné; M Alikani; G Tomkin; J Grifo; J Cohen
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 7.329

View more
  28 in total

1.  Extended in vitro maturation of immature oocytes from stimulated cycles: an analysis of fertilization potential, embryo development, and reproductive outcomes.

Authors:  David E Reichman; Joseph Politch; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Standardization of grading embryo morphology.

Authors:  Catherine Racowsky; Michael Vernon; Jacob Mayer; G David Ball; Barry Behr; Kimball O Pomeroy; David Wininger; William Gibbons; Joseph Conaghan; Judy E Stern
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Release of superoxide dismutase-1 by day 3 embryos of varying quality and implantation potential.

Authors:  Catherine M H Combelles; Emily A Holick; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Morphokinetic Evaluation of Embryo Development in a Mouse Model: Functional and Molecular Correlates.

Authors:  Rachel Weinerman; Rui Feng; Teri S Ord; Richard M Schultz; Marisa S Bartolomei; Christos Coutifaris; Monica Mainigi
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.285

5.  Number of supernumerary vitrified blastocysts is positively correlated with implantation and live birth in single-blastocyst embryo transfers.

Authors:  Micah J Hill; Kevin S Richter; Ryan J Heitmann; Terrance D Lewis; Alan H DeCherney; James R Graham; Eric Widra; Michael J Levy
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Is the presence of a non-cleaved embryo on day 3 associated with poorer quality of the remaining embryos in the cohort?

Authors:  Ronit Machtinger; Charles L Bormann; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy.

Authors:  C Scarica; D Cimadomo; L Dovere; A Giancani; M Stoppa; A Capalbo; F M Ubaldi; L Rienzi; R Canipari
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  The effect of short-term exposure of cumulus-oocyte complexes to in vitro maturation medium on yield of mature oocytes and usable embryos in stimulated cycles.

Authors:  C R Sacha; D J Kaser; L V Farland; S Srouji; S A Missmer; C Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Ultrastructure of cytoplasmic fragments in human cleavage stage embryos.

Authors:  Iman Halvaei; Mohammad Ali Khalili; Navid Esfandiari; Somayyeh Safari; Ali Reza Talebi; Selenia Miglietta; Stefania A Nottola
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  Using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome System morphological measures to predict live birth after assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Judy E Stern; Sangita K Jindal; Catherine Racowsky; G David Ball
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 7.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.