Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does cleavage stage morphology increase the discriminatory power of prediction in blastocyst transfer outcome?

  • Embryo biology
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 18 December 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the contribution of the cleavage stage morphological parameters to the prediction of blastocyst transfer outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 8383 single-blastocyst transfer cycles including 2246 fresh and 6137 vitrified-warmed cycles. XGboost, LASSO, and GLM algorithms were employed to establish models for assessing the predictive value of the cleavage stage morphological parameters in transfer outcomes. Four models were developed using each algorithm: all-in model with or without day 3 morphology and embryo quality-only model with or without day 3 morphology.

Results

The live birth rate was 48.04% in the overall cohort. The AUCs of the models with the algorithm of XGboost were 0.83, 0.82, 0.63, and 0.60; with LASSO were 0.66, 0.66, 0.61, and 0.60; and with GLM were 0.66, 0.66, 0.61, and 0.60 respectively. In models 1 and 2, female age, basal FSH, peak E2, endometrial thickness, and female BMI were the top five critical features for predicting live birth; In models 3 and 4, the most crucial factor was blastocyst formation on D5 rather than D6. In model 3, incorporating cleavage stage morphology, including early cleavage, D3 cell number, and fragmentation, was significantly associated with successful live birth. Additionally, the live birth rates for blastocysts derived from on-time, slow, and fast D3 embryos were 49.7%, 39.5%, and 52%, respectively.

Conclusions

The value of cleavage stage morphological parameters in predicting the live birth outcome of single blastocyst transfer is limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. David K, Gardner DP, Lane M, John Stevens MT, Terry Schlenker MA, Schoolcraft WB, M.D. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Morbeck DE. Blastocyst culture in the Era of PGS and FreezeAlls: is a ‘C’ a failing grade? Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2017(3):hox017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Braga DP, Setti AS, Figueira RC, Iaconelli A Jr, Borges E Jr. The importance of the cleavage stage morphology evaluation for blastocyst transfer in patients with good prognosis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(8):1105–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. della Tiziana Ragione GV, Evangelos G Papanikolaou, van Lisbet Landuyt, Paul Devroey, and van Andre Steirteghem. Developmental stage on day-5 and fragmentation rate on day-3 can influence the implantation potential of top-quality blastocysts in IVF cycles with single embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Shen X, Long H, Gao H, Guo W, Xie Y, Chen D, et al. The valuable reference of live birth rate in the single vitrified-warmed BB/BC/CB blastocyst transfer: the cleavage-stage embryo quality and embryo development speed. Front Physiol. 2020;11:1102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu J, Zhang J, Kuang Y, Chen Q, Wang Y. The effect of Day 3 cell number on pregnancy outcomes in vitrified-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(11):2478–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Leger J, Bidault R, Cadoret V, Chavez C, et al. Does early morphology provide additional selection power to blastocyst selection for transfer? Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(4):510–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Herbemont C, Sarandi S, Boujenah J, Cedrin-Durnerin I, Sermondade N, Vivot A, et al. Should we consider day-2 and day-3 embryo morphology before day-5 transfer when blastocysts reach a similar good quality? Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):521–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zilberberg E, Casper R, Meriano J, Barzilay E, Aizer A, Kirshenbaum M, et al. Cleavage vs blastocyst stage embryos: how are they interrelating? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;304(4):1083–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cai J, Liu L, Zhang J, Qiu H, Jiang X, Li P, et al. Low body mass index compromises live birth rate in fresh transfer in vitro fertilization cycles: a retrospective study in a Chinese population. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):422–9 e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang W, Cai J, Liu L, Xu Y, Liu Z, Chen J, et al. Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen T, He T, Benesty M, Khotilovich V, Tang Y, Cho H, et al. XGboost: Extreme Gradient Boosting. R package version 1.5.2.1. 2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xgboost.

  14. Jerome Friedman TH, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33:1–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamran SC, Reichman DE, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Karaca N, Romano A, et al. Day 3 embryo shape as a morphologic selection parameter in in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(10):1135–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Enatsu N, Miyatsuka I, An LM, Inubushi M, Enatsu K, Otsuki J, et al. A novel system based on artificial intelligence for predicting blastocyst viability and visualizing the explanation. Reprod Med Biol. 2022;21(1):e12443.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sivanantham S, Saravanan M, Sharma N, Srinivasan J, Raja R. Morphology of inner cell mass: a better predictive biomarker of blastocyst viability. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13935.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Xiong F, Sun Q, Wang S, Yao Z, Chen P, Wan C, et al. A nomogram to assist blastocyst selection in vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48(7):1816–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu Y, Yang R, Lin H, Cao C, Jiao X, Zhang Q. A validated model for individualized prediction of live birth in patients with adenomyosis undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:902083.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma BX, Huang B, Chen D, Jin L, Rao Q. Are early embryo cleavage kinetics affected by energy substrates in different culture media? Curr Med Sci. 2022;42(6):1297–304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dhillon RK, McLernon DJ, Smith PP, Fishel S, Dowell K, Deeks JJ, et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counseling tool. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):84–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, Te Velde ER, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilization: population-based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 2016;355:i5735.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Blank C, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(2):318–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fordham DE, Rosentraub D, Polsky AL, Aviram T, Wolf Y, Perl O, et al. Embryologist agreement when assessing blastocyst implantation probability: is data-driven prediction the solution to embryo assessment subjectivity? Hum Reprod. 2022;37(10):2275–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lannon BM, Choi B, Hacker MR, Dodge LE, Malizia BA, Barrett CB, et al. Predicting personalized multiple birth risks after in vitro fertilization-double embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Stern JE, Baker VL, Widra E, et al. A prediction model for live birth and multiple births within the first three cycles of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):744–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, Pan Y, Finn A, Miles L, Gale S, O’Leary T, Jackson KV. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(3):323–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61852-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specilic for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(10):2190–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, et al. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(5):1041–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li M, Wang Y, Shi J. Do day-3 embryo grade predict day-5 blastocyst transfer outcomes in patients with good prognosis? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(1):36–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu Z, Jiang M, He L, Liu Y. Cell number considerations for blastocyst transfer in younger patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):619–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen L, Wang J, Zhu L, Xu Z, Zhang N, Lin F, et al. The effect of the day 3 embryo cell number on the neonatal outcomes of day 5 single blastocyst transfer in frozen embryo transfer cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;283:81–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fu J, Wang XJ, Wang YW, Sun J, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Sun XX. The influence of early cleavage on embryo developmental potential and IVF/ICSI outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(8):437–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Theilgaard Lassen J, Fly Kragh M, Rimestad J, Nygard Johansen M, Berntsen J. Development and validation of deep learning based embryo selection across multiple days of transfer. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):4235.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cai J, Liu L, Chen J, Liu Z, Jiang X, Chen H, et al. Day-3-embryo fragmentation is associated with singleton birth weight following fresh single blastocyst transfer: a retrospective study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:919283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wardlaw AKBT. Monitoring low birth weight: an evaluation of international estimates and an updated estimation procedure. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(3):178–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciated all staff of the Reproductive Medicine Center, Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital, for their treatments provided to the infertile couples included in the study.

Funding

This work was supported by the Xiamen Medical and Health Guidance Project (grant number 3502Z20214ZD1192); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 22176159); and the Xiamen medical advantage subspecialty construction project (grant number 2018296).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Zhenfang Liu and Jiali Cai contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Medicine Center, Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China

    Zhenfang Liu, Jiali Cai, Lanlan Liu, Jinghua Chen, Chao Yang, Kaijie Chen, Xiaolian Yang, Jianzhi Ren & Xiaoming Jiang

  2. School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361005, Fujian, China

    Jiali Cai, Lanlan Liu & Xiaoming Jiang

  3. Medical Quality Management Department, Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China

    Ling Ouyang

Authors
  1. Zhenfang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiali Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lanlan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ling Ouyang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jinghua Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kaijie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaolian Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jianzhi Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xiaoming Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoming Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the Figs 1, 2 and 3 captions had been interchanged; the figure captions should have appeared as shown below.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Cai, J., Liu, L. et al. Does cleavage stage morphology increase the discriminatory power of prediction in blastocyst transfer outcome?. J Assist Reprod Genet 41, 347–358 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02997-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02997-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation