Closing the Lab-Clinic Feedback Loop with AI-Powered Oocyte Insights
When IVF outcomes don’t meet expectations, is the limiting factor the stimulation protocol, the intrinsic oocyte quality, or the lab process itself? MAGENTA™ introduces objectivity to this common clinical dilemma — functioning as a lab KPI that enables both embryologists and clinicians to pinpoint where adjustments may be needed.
CONTEXT:
Suboptimal IVF outcomes often raise a familiar triad of questions:
🩺 Clinical: Could the stimulation protocol — type and dose of gonadotropins, LH suppression method, or trigger dose and timing — have played a role?
🥚 Patient: Were the oocytes intrinsically lower in quality?
🔬 Lab: Could ICSI techniques or culture conditions be further optimized?
Today’s patients expect data-driven answers. Addressing these questions requires tight collaboration between clinicians and embryologists. That’s where MAGENTA™ fits in — providing a standardized, objective assessment of oocyte quality via AI analysis of denuded MII oocytes.
THE OPPORTUNITY:
MAGENTA™ scores (0-10) correlate strongly with both fertilization and blastocyst development potential. (Click here to access all of our previous research on this)
By incorporating these scores into lab KPI dashboards, IVF teams can:
📊 Benchmark stimulation protocols across clinicians and centres
📈 Track oocyte quality trends in specific patient subgroups
🔄 Provide real-time lab-to-clinic feedback
⚙️ Evolve stimulation strategies gradually, based on objective inputs — not just outcomes
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: MAGENTA™ Score Distribution By Stimulation Protocol
🔬 ESHRE 2025: FSH + LH vs. FSH-only
- In patients ≤35 years, adding LH significantly improved MAGENTA™ oocyte quality scores (6.4 vs. 6.0, p<0.001), alongside better blastocyst development and faster morphokinetics.
- Read the abstract in Human Reproduction
🔬 ASRM 2023: GnRH-antagonist vs. agonist
- Across 8,175 oocytes, MAGENTA™ scores were significantly higher in the antagonist group:
- Overall: 5.1 vs. 4.8, p<0.01
- Age <35: 5.2 vs. 4.7, p<0.01
- Age ≥35: 5.0 vs. 4.8, p=0.07
- These differences mirrored higher blastocyst formation in the GnRH-ant group.
- Read the abstract in Fertility & Sterility
🔬 ESHRE 2025: Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs GnRH-antagonist
- MAGENTA™ scores were comparable between PPOS and antagonist protocols (5.87 vs. 5.99, p=0.068), suggesting that PPOS preserves oocyte quality while offering a simpler, oral alternative.
- Read the abstract in Human Reproduction
THE BOTTOM LINE:
MAGENTA™ enables clinicians and embryologists to work together using a shared, objective language of oocyte quality. As a lab KPI, it transforms ovarian stimulation protocol assessment from retrospective guesswork into real-time, data-driven refinement—making it possible to directly evaluate how stimulation choices influence oocyte quality and outcomes.
If you’ve found these examples helpful in understanding how MAGENTA™ can be incorporated at your clinic or other aspects related to your use of Future Fertility’s egg quality assessments, please share it with us at info@futurefertility.com.
Join our mailing list for dispatches on the future of fertility