“…Such technology has captured the imagination of practitioners as both a research tool (Costa-Borges et al, 2016;Hardarson et al, 2015;Mölder et al, 2015), comparing embryos resulting from various clinical conditions (Balakier et al, 2016;Gurbuz et al, 2016;Hashimoto et al, 2016;Kaihola et al, 2016;Lindgren et al, 2016), and as a potential prognosticator in clinical practice (Adamson et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2016;Kong et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2016;Milewski et al, 2015;Mizobe et al, 2016;Rubio et al, 2014;VerMilyea et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2016aWu et al, , 2016bYang et al, 2014), although some studies negate this (Freour et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2016aWu et al, , 2016b. Bronet et al (2015) even found distinctive morphokinetic differences between male and female embryos. A few studies have purported to relate discriminating morphokinetics of euploid and aneuploid embryos (Campbell et al, 2013a(Campbell et al, , 2013bMinasi et al, 2016;Vera-Rodriguez et al, 2015), although this has been disputed (Rienzi et al, 2015).…”