MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411750293 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf097.213

O-213 Cytoplasmic strings in human in-vitro embryos: a promising indicator for enhanced live-birth outcomes – a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411750293 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vikash Dodhia, Benjamin Ng, F Tom, Ying Cheong

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Biology and Fertility
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLive birthMeta-analysisIn vitroEmbryoIn vitro fertilisationBiologyAndrologyMedicinePregnancyCell biologyGeneticsPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Does the presence and characteristics of cytoplasmic strings (CS) in human in-vitro blastocysts influence pregnancy and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) outcomes? Summary answer The presence of cytoplasmic strings in human in-vitro blastocysts is associated with higher livebirth rates (LBR), clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) and morphological quality. What is known already CS are transient structures consisting of thin filamentous connections (filopodia) that traverse the blastocoel, connecting the inner cell mass to the mural trophectoderm in blastocysts. While animal studies have observed CS for years, their role in embryogenesis remains unclear. Initially considered abnormal in expanded blastocysts, recent time-lapse studies on human in-vitro embryos suggest CS may indicate a higher developmental potential. Although morphological and morphokinetic assessment guidelines now include CS, their impact on embryo viability remains inconclusive due to limited evidence on clinical outcomes. Study design, size, duration This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched using predefined MeSH terms from 1946 till 12/2024. Studies were selected per PICO framework, screened independently and back-reference searched. Inclusion criteria were population; pre-implantation embryo, intervention; ‘CS and related terms’. Meta-analysis required a control of blastocysts without CS and reporting primary outcome; LBR or secondary outcomes; CPR, embryo quality. Exclusion criteria were ‘non-human’ and ‘non-English language’. Participants/materials, setting, methods The systematic review comprised 23 publications (7 reviews and 15 studies) assessed for bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted from 11 studies for meta-analysis following standardised methods. RevMan, Stata, or R were used for analysis and employed fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q, I²). Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (OR), or mean differences. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger’s test, with sensitivity and subgroup analyses performed. Main results and the role of chance Meta-analysis of 11 studies (1 case-control and 10 cohort) included 6,952 blastocysts analysed for CS presence; 4,064 exhibited CS (CS+), while 2,888 did not (CS−). Across the 11 studies CS+ prevalence ranged from 25.05% to 93.00%. Pooled analysis from six studies reporting LBR demonstrated higher LBR associated with CS+ blastocysts (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.02–3.06, I² = 33%, n = 2,527 transferred blastocysts). Similarly, increased CPR in CS+ blastocysts was observed across five studies (OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.03–4.97, I² = 66%, n = 1,963). However, when studies at risk of bias were excluded, this was no longer significant (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.97–2.64, I² = 0%, n = 1,787). CS+ blastocysts also demonstrated higher odds of being classified as good-quality, and maintained this after accounting for potential biases (OR = 4.56, 95% CI: 3.57–5.83, I² = 0%, n = 1,826). Additionally, morphokinetic differences between CS+ and CS− blastocysts will be presented. The literature review revealed limited data on filopodia in human pre-implantation embryos. Some studies included in the systematic review, but not the meta-analysis, reported CS composition (F-actin), slight-to-moderate inter-/intra-observer agreement in CS assessment, and CS presence in human in-vivo blastocysts. One study was excluded due to incomplete data. Limitations, reasons for caution For some outcomes, data could not be included in meta-analyses due to incompatible or incomplete data in the publications. High level of heterogeneity is present throughout studies, likely secondary to IVF methodological differences and inter- and intra-observer variability on reporting on CS. Wider implications of the findings Our meta-analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between CS and improved IVF outcomes. Further research is necessary into the biological role of CS in embryogenesis and their potential influence on embryo viability. Integrating CS assessment into blastocyst evaluation protocols could refine embryo selection strategies, ultimately improving pregnancy success rates in IVF. Trial registration number No

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,908
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,088
Tête enseignante GPT0,392
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Biology and FertilityTravaux en français237 207