Abeyta, M, Behr, B. Morphological assessment of embryo viability. Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32(02): 114–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Paternot, G, Devroe, J, Debrock, S, D’Hooghe, TM, Spiessens, C. Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos. RBQE 2009; 7: 105.Google ScholarPubMed

Kirkegaard, K, Agerholm, IE, Ingerslev, HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012; 27(5): 1277–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wong, C, Chen, AA, Behr, B, Shen, S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26(2): 120–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chen, AA, Tan, L, Suraj, V, Reijo Pera, R, Shen, S. Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. Fertil Steril 2013; 99(4): 1035–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aparicio, B, Cruz, M, Meseguer, M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27(6): 654–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harper, J, Cristina Magli, M, Lundin, K, Barratt, CLR, Brison, D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Hum Reprod 2012; 27(2): 303–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bodurtha, J, Strauss, JF, 3rd. Genomics and perinatal care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(1): 64–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Martini, E, Flaherty, SP, Swann, NJ, Payne, D, Matthews, CD. Analysis of unfertilized oocytes subjected to intracytoplasmic sperm injection using two rounds of fluorescence in-situ hybridization and probes to five chromosomes. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(9): 2011–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardarson, T, Lofman, C, Coull, G, Sjogren, A, Hamberger, L, Edwards, RG. Internalization of cellular fragments in a human embryo: time-lapse recordings. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5(1): 36–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mio, Y, Maeda, K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(6): 660 e1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pribenszky, C, Matyas, S, Kovacs, P, Losonczi, E, Zadori, J, Vajta, G. Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21(4): 533–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wong, C, Loewke, K, Bossert, N, Behr, B, De Jonge, C, Baer, T, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28(10): 1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, Hilligsoe, KM, Ramsing, NB, Remohi, J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(10): 2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chavez, SL, Loewke, KE, Han, J, Moussavi, F, Colls, P, Munne, S, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun 2012; 3: 1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wong, C, Chen, A, Behr, B, Shen, S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online 2013 Feb; 26(2): 120–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaser, DJ, Racowsky, C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reproduction Update 2014; 20(5): 617–31.Google ScholarPubMed

Munoz, M, Cruz, M, Humaidan, P, Garrido, N, Perez-Cano, I, Meseguer, M. Dose of recombinant FSH and oestradiol concentration on day of HCG affect embryo development kinetics. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25(4): 382–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dal Canto, M, Coticchio, G, Mignini Renzini, M, De Ponti, E, Novara, PV, Brambillasca, F, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25(5): 474–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ciray, HN, Aksoy, T, Goktas, C, Ozturk, B, Bahceci, M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media – a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29(9): 891–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Basile, N, Morbeck, D, Garcia-Velasco, J, Bronet, F, Meseguer, M. Type of culture media does not affect embryo kinetics: a time-lapse analysis of sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod 2013; 28(3): 634–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirkegaard, K, Hindkjaer, JJ, Ingerslev, HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril 2013; 99(3): 738–44 e4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rubio, I, Galán, A, Larreategui, Z, Ayerdi, F, Bellver, J, Herrero, J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 2014; 102(5): 1287–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Conaghan, J, Chen, AA, Willman, SP, Ivani, K, Chenette, PE, Boostanfar, R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100(2): 412–9 e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ebner, T, Shebl, O, Moser, M, Mayer, RB, Arzt, W, Tews, G. Group culture of human zygotes is superior to individual culture in terms of blastulation, implantation and life birth. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21(6): 762–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Diamond, M, Suraj, V, Behnke, E, Yang, X, Angle, M, Lambe-Steinmiller, J, et al. Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baxter Bendus, AE, Mayer, JF, Shipley, SK, Catherino, WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(6): 1608–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gardner, DK, Schoolcraft, WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen, R, Mortimer, D, editors. Toward Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. pp. 378–88.Google Scholar

Zaninovic, N, Ye, Z, Zhan, Q, Clarke, R, Rosenwaks, Z. Cell stage onsets, embryo developmental potential and chromosomal abnormalities in embryos exhibiting direct unequal cleavages (DUCs). Fertil Steril 2013; 100(3): S242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubio, I, Kuhlmann, R, Agerholm, I, Kirk, J, Herrero, J, Escribá, M-J, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(6): 1458–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

VerMilyea, MD, Tan, L, Anthony, JT, Conaghan, J, Ivani, K, Gvakharia, M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: A blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod Biomed Online, 2014; 29(6): 729–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Meseguer, M, Rubio, I, Cruz, M, Basile, N, Marcos, J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(6): 1481–9.e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Athayde Wirka, K, Chen, AA, Conaghan, J, Ivani, K, Gvakharia, M, Behr, B, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril 2014; 101(6): 1637–48.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Phillips, KA, Bales, KL, Capitanio, JP, Conley, A, Czoty, PW, ‘t Hart, BA, et al. Why primate models matter. Am J Primatology 2014; 76(9): 801–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burruel, V, Klooster, K, Barker, C, Reijo Pera, R, Meyers, S. Abnormal early cleavage events predict early embryo demise: sperm oxidative stress and early abnormal cleavage. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 6598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed