Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should
Fertile Battle
Published
Volume 109, Issue 4, Pages 584–591
Authors:
Richard J. Paulson, M.D., M.S., David E. Reichman, M.D., Nikica Zaninovic, M.S., Ph.D., H.C.L.D., E.L.D., Linnea R. Goodman, M.D., Catherine Racowsky, Ph.D.
Abstract:
Over the last 50 years, embryo culture techniques for in vitro fertilization (IVF) have continued to evolve. The latest evolution raises a controversial question—whether culturing embryos in systems which allow for undisturbed time-lapse monitoring (TLM) improve our fundamental understanding of embryogenesis, and whether that understanding can reliably translate into improved clinical outcomes (1).
Which argument in this paper would you agree with?
Created with Survey Maker
Comments
Thank you for this fantastic review of time-lapse imaging. Amazingly balanced, critical, insightful and succinct! I know we need more data, but what is the authors gut feeling on the future of time-lapse imaging? Mainstream and here to stay or another modality that falls to the curb?
Thanks, Micah! It definitely adds information. Whether a lab adds that information may depend on whether it costs $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000.