ArticleAnimal reproduction2023
The embryo non-invasive pre-implantation diagnosis era: how far are we?
Article in Animal reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Ploidy and Implantation Potential: Non-Invasive Small Non-Coding RNA-Based Health Assessment of Day 5 and 6 Blastocysts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Accuracy of Non-Invasive Preimplantation Genetic Testing (niPGT) Compared to Invasive Embryo Biopsy.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Retinoic Acid Action in Cumulus Cells: Implications for Oocyte Development and In Vitro Fertilization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Bovine embryo productionAnimal reproduction · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in assisted reproduction (AR) methodologies have allowed significant improvements in live birth rates of women who otherwise would not be able to conceive. One of the tools that allowed this improvement is the possibility of embryo selection based on genetic status, performed via preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Even though the widespread use of PGT from TE biopsy helped to decrease the interval from the beginning of the AR intervention to pregnancy, especially in older patients, in AR, there are still many concerns about the application of this invasive methodology in all cycles. Therefore, recently, researchers started to study the use of cell free DNA (cfDNA) released by the blastocyst in its culture medium to perform PGT, in a method called non-invasive PGT (niPGT). The development of a niPGT would bring the diagnostics power of conventional PGT, but with the advantage of being potentially less harmful to the embryo. Its implementation in clinical practice, however, is under heavy discussion since there are many unknowns about the technique, such as the origin of the cfDNA or if this genetic material is a true representative of the actual ploidy status of the embryo. Available data indicates that there is high correspondence between results observed in TE biopsies and the ones observed from cfDNA, but these results are still contradictory and highly debatable. In the present review, the advantages and disadvantages of niPGT are presented and discussed in relation to tradition TE biopsy-based PGT. Furthermore, there are also presented some other possible non-invasive tools that could be applied in the selection of the best embryo, such as quantification of other molecules as quality biomarkers, or the use artificial intelligence (AI) to identify the best embryos based on morphological and/or morphokitetic parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.