One for all or all for one? The evolution of embryo morphokinetics

Reflections

Go to the profile of Fertility and Sterility
Fertility and Sterility
Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Published
Like Comment

Authors:

Marcos Meseguer, Ph.D., Antonio Pellicer, M.D.

Abstract:

Reflections on "Examining the efficacy of six published time lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in house morphokinetic selection algorithms."


Read the full text here.

Go to the profile of Fertility and Sterility

Fertility and Sterility

Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. 

Comments

Go to the profile of Alexander Quaas
Alexander Quaas
almost 5 years ago
In the article by Barrie et al it is noteworthy that the AUC for all the ESAs was less than 0.63, suggesting that none of the ESAs can be considered as a particularly useful test. Your commentary suggests that other ESAs, such as the algorithm applied in "Early Embryo Viability Assessment" result in higher AUC. Can we be reassured that the AUC for morphokinetic embryo selection is higher than traditional morphology assessment, warranting more widespread use of the technique in the future?