Skip to main content

Higher preconceptional maternal body mass index is associated with faster early preimplantation embryonic development: the Rotterdam periconception cohort



Overweight and obesity affect millions of people globally, which has also serious implications for reproduction. For example, treatment outcomes after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are worse in women with a high body mass index (BMI). However, the impact of maternal BMI on embryo quality is inconclusive. Our main aim is to study associations between preconceptional maternal BMI and morphokinetic parameters of preimplantation embryos and predicted implantation potential. In addition, associations with clinical IVF outcomes are investigated.


From a tertiary hospital, 268 women undergoing IVF or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were included; 143 normal weight, 79 overweight and 46 obese women. The embryos of these women were cultured in the EmbryoScope, a time-lapse incubator. The morphokinetic parameters of preimplantation embryos and predicted implantation potential, assessed by the KIDScore algorithm were longitudinally evaluated as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. The tertiary outcomes included clinical outcomes, i.e., fertilization, implantation and live birth rate.


After adjustment for patient- and treatment-related factors, we demonstrated in 938 embryos that maternal BMI is negatively associated with the moment of pronuclear appearance (βtPNa -0.070 h (95%CI -0.139, -0.001), p = 0.048), pronuclear fading (βtPNf -0.091 h (95%CI -0.180, -0.003), p = 0.043 and the first cell cleavage (βt2 -0.111 h (95%CI -0.205, -0.016), p = 0.022). Maternal BMI was not significantly associated with the KIDScore and tertiary clinical treatment outcomes. In embryos from couples with female or combined factor subfertility, the impact of maternal BMI was even larger (βtPNf -0.170 h (95%CI -0.293, -0.047), p = 0.007; βt2 -0.199 h (95%CI -0.330, -0.067), p = 0.003). Additionally, a detrimental impact of BMI per point increase was observed on the KIDScore (β -0.073 (se 0.028), p = 0.010).


Higher maternal BMI is associated with faster early preimplantation development. In couples with female or combined factor subfertility, a higher BMI is associated with a lower implantation potential as predicted by the KIDScore. Likely due to power issues, we did not observe an impact on clinical treatment outcomes. However, an effect of faster preimplantation development on post-implantation development is conceivable, especially since the impact of maternal BMI on pregnancy outcomes has been widely demonstrated.


Overweight and obesity affect millions of people of all ages, genders, ethnicities and income levels [1]. Although the pathophysiology of adiposity is highly complex and multifactorial, it is fundamentally caused by a positive energy imbalance and influenced by genetic and numerous environmental factors [2, 3]. Surplus energy is stored as fat, which leads to a disruption of numerous physiological processes on endocrine, immune and vascular levels [4]. This explains why an elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with various non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes type 2 and cancer [5, 6].

Obesity and overweight not only increase the risk of non-communicable diseases, but also can impact reproduction [7]. As almost half of the women in the reproductive period are overweight or obese, this has serious consequences. Adiposity affects metabolic and endocrine processes involved in fertility, which leads to an increased risk of miscarriages, reduced conception rate and anovulation [8,9,10]. Therefore, overweight and obesity are likely overrepresented in women receiving fertility treatment, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) [11].

Outcomes after IVF treatment are poorer in women with a high BMI compared to normal weight women [12,13,14]. The mechanisms by which adiposity affects reproduction are not yet fully understood. It is suggested that obesity interferes with biological processes and pathways at endocrine, follicular, uterine and embryonic levels [15,16,17,18]. For example, obesity increases follicular fluid concentrations of lipids, metabolites and inflammatory markers, and impacts gene expression of cumulus cells, which can impair oocyte development [19, 20]. Interestingly, the impact of maternal BMI on embryo quality is inconclusive [18, 21,22,23].

Since three decades, preimplantation embryo development can be closely observed with time-lapse imaging [24]. This technique is increasingly used to study associations between embryo development and implantation, and to improve embryo selection by algorithms such as the KIDScore [25]. Prospective randomized trials report conflicting results on the improvement of success rates after embryo selection based on time-lapse parameters, and also indicate that these parameters are subject to patient-related factors [26, 27]. Moreover, previous studies investigating the impact of BMI on these parameters report conflicting results and are exclusively performed in cycles with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) [28, 29].

From this background, the main aim of this study is to investigate the hypothesis that a high maternal BMI is detrimentally associated with preimplantation embryo quality, as assessed by developmental time-lapse parameters and predicted implantation potential (KIDScore). In addition, we also investigated associations with clinical treatment outcomes after IVF/ICSI treatment.


Study design

The data used for this study was collected between May 2017 and December 2019 as part of the Virtual Embryoscope study. This is an ongoing prospective sub-study of the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort, an observational open prospective tertiary hospital-based cohort, embedded in the outpatient clinic of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands [30]. The Rotterdam Periconception Cohort focuses on periconceptional influences on reproductive success and adverse pregnancy outcomes and health of the offspring up to 1 year of age. For this study, subfertile couples with an indication for IVF/ICSI treatment, aged 18 years or older with adequate understanding of the Dutch language were eligible for participation.

For this study, couples were excluded if: 1) no fertilization occurred and no embryos were available (n = 14); 2) the embryos were not cultured in the EmbryoScope (n = 35); 3) IVF/ICSI treatment was performed with donated or vitrified oocytes (n = 8); 4) treatment was performed after > 1 year following inclusion in the study (n = 5) or 5) ICSI was performed with testicular extracted sperm (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the VIRTUAL EmbryoScope study population embedded in the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort. Abbreviations: TESE, testicular sperm extraction. ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection

In vitro fertilization procedures and time-lapse imaging

Ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval and IVF/ICSI procedures were performed as previously described [31, 32]. Women underwent ovarian stimulation with either recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) or urinary FSH, with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or GnRH-antagonist co-treatment. Ovarian stimulation protocols were standardized; the distribution of GnRH-agonist or -antagonist protocol reflects policy changes over time and not patient selection. FSH dosage was based on maternal age, BMI, antral follicle count, anti-müllarian hormone (AMH) level and prior response to gonadotrophins (if applicable). Final follicular maturation was triggered with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) or a GnRH-agonist. Oocytes were collected 35 h later and cultured in SAGE human tubal fluid medium (HTF, CooperSurgical, Trumbull, CT, USA); supplemented with 5% human serum albumin (CooperSurgical) under an oil overlay (CooperSurgical).

After insemination, IVF oocytes were cultured overnight in drops of 100 µl HTF medium in universal GPS dishes (CooperSurgical) under oil. The next morning, only fertilized dipronucleate oocytes were transferred to an EmbryoSlide (Vitrolife, Goteborg, Sweden) for culture in the EmbryoScope™ time-lapse incubator (Vitrolife). ICSI oocytes were denuded and transferred to an EmbryoSlide directly after sperm injection. Injected oocytes or embryos were cultured individually in 25 µl of SAGE 1-Step medium (Cooper Surgical) under 1.4 ml oil. Culture in the EmbryoScope™ was conform conventional culture, performed using customized settings, with a temperature setting of 36.8 °C and in an atmosphere containing 7% O2 and 4.5% CO2. This atmosphere was validated to result in a pH of the SAGE 1-Step culture medium of 7.2–7.3.

Images were automatically recorded every 10 min after exposure to a single red LED (635 nm, < 0.1 s per image) with a monochrome CCD camera. On day 3 after fertilization, embryo evaluation and selection for embryo transfer (ET) was based on conventional morphology, i.e. number of blastomeres, fragmentation, size equality, and signs of early compaction, without the support of time-lapse information. Selection of embryos for cryopreservation was performed on day 4, based on the degree of compaction and fragmentation.

Two weeks after ET, implantation was biochemically confirmed by a positive β-hCG test. Pregnancy was confirmed by ultrasound at 7 and 12 weeks of gestation by the presence of a gestational sac and fetal heartbeat.

Study parameters

Participants completed a preconceptional questionnaire covering demographic and lifestyle details. A researcher verified all data at study entry and measured anthropometrics. Subfertility diagnoses were retrieved from medical records and, when applicable, stratified according to the WHO classification of anovulation [33].

Time-lapse parameters were annotated manually according to the definitions of the ESHRE consensus for dynamic monitoring of human preimplantation development [34]. All freshly transferred and cryopreserved embryos were annotated for the following morphokinetic parameters: pronuclear appearance (tPNa), pronuclear fading (tPNf), t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7 and t8. tPNa was defined as the first frame in which both pronuclei had appeared, and tPNf as the first frame in which both had faded. Timing of reaching the 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8-cell stage was defined as t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7 and t8, respectively. Some of these parameters were used to assign each embryo a KIDScore (Supplemental table 1). This is a generally applicable embryo deselection tool based on 6 parameters, of which the lowest score (= 1) corresponds with a chance of implantation of 5%, whereas the highest score (= 5) corresponds with a 36% chance of implantation [25]. Validation of the KIDScore in our clinic showed that KIDScore 1 embryos implant in 23% of cases, increasing to 52% for KIDScore 5 embryos after SET. Internal validation of inter-observer reproducibility demonstrated extremely close agreement for the timings of tPNf until t5 (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.95). A moderate agreement was found for t6, t7 and t8 (ICC 0.23–0.40).

Clinical treatment outcomes were retrieved from medical records. Pre-transfer clinical treatment outcomes included: fertilization rate, which was calculated by dividing the number of fertilized oocytes by the number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved and embryo usage rate, which was calculated by dividing the number of usable embryos, i.e. all freshly transferred and cryopreserved, by the number of fertilized oocytes. Post-transfer clinical treatment outcomes included cumulative pregnancy rate, which was defined as an ongoing pregnancy resulting from either fresh ET or frozen-thawed ET from the studied treatment cycle within a 2 year follow-up period.

Statistical analyses

Based on initial reports in human embryos, preimplantation embryos from obese women are expected to be developmentally delayed [35]. Based on culture of the first 900 embryos in our EmbryoScope™, average time needed from pronuclear disappearance to the 4-cell stage was 16.7 h (SD ± 5). The intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.16. To show a delay of at least 2 h (0.4SD) in reaching the 4-cell stage, while correcting for statistical clustering of embryos derived from the same patient (1 + ([average no. of embryos/ patient]-1)*ICC = 1 + 4*0.1591 = 1.64), we needed 100* 1.64 = 164 embryos in each group to achieve an 80% power to detect this 2 h difference at α = 0.05.

Continuous baseline data were compared between women with normal weight, overweight and obesity, using Kruskall-Wallis tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for categorical data.

Analyses of morphokinetic parameters were performed on transferred and cryopreserved embryos. Since couples often have multiple embryos and embryos from a couple are likely to exhibit comparable developmental patterns, linear regression analyses are not appropriate. Therefore, we applied linear mixed models with time-lapse parameters as response variables and BMI as independent variable.

Proportional odds models were used to study the association between maternal BMI and the KIDScore, using the ordinal package in R (Rune Haubo B Christensen). This model is for ordinal outcomes like the KIDScore, with patient-specific intercepts to account for the correlation between sibling embryos.

Associations between BMI and continuous treatment outcomes, such as fertilization rate, were analyzed using linear regression. For associations between BMI and dichotomous outcomes, such as a positive β-hCG-test, logistic regression was applied.

All associations were studied with maternal BMI as a continuous variable. Two models were constructed for analyses on morphokinetic parameters and the KIDScore; a crude model without adjustments and the adjusted model with adjustments for maternal age, fertilization method, type of ovarian stimulation and paternal BMI and age. Analyses on treatment outcomes were adjusted for maternal age and type of ovarian stimulation. Post-hoc analyses were performed with maternal BMI divided into categories of normal weight (BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI > 25 kg/m2) and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2), with normal weight as reference category. Furthermore, we stratified analyses of morphokinetic parameters for fertilisation method, as a 2-h delay between insemination and fertilisation has been suggested for IVF embryos [36]. In addition, we performed sub-analyses of embryos of couples with only a female subfertility diagnosis (e.g. endometriosis or PCOS) and a male partner with normal semen parameters, or combined female and male factor subfertility. All analyses were performed in SPSS statistics 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, USA) and R (R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.1.3, 2015 for Windows, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.


Baseline characteristics

A total of 268 women (n = 938 embryos) were included, of whom 143 were of normal weight (n = 482 embryos), 79 overweight (n = 294 embryos) and 46 obese (n = 162 embryos) (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the three groups, except that normal weight women were more often highly educated than overweight and obese women (62.7, 51.9 and 30.4%, respectively, p = 0.004) (Table 1). Additionally, types of female type subfertility are not significantly different between the three groups (Supplemental table 2).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the VIRTUAL EmbryoScope study population (n = 268)

Morphokinetic parameters

Linear mixed model analyses showed negative betas for all morphokinetic parameters, indicating a faster development for every increase in BMI point (Table 2). However, this was only significant for tPNf (βcrude -0.119 h (95%CI -0.206, -0.031), p = 0.008; βadjusted -0.091 h (95%CI -0.180, -0.003), p = 0.043) and t2 (βcrude -0.142 h (95%CI -0.235, -0.049), p = 0.003; βadjusted -0.111 h (95%CI -0.205, -0.016), p = 0.022). Stratification for fertilization method demonstrated that the negative beta for tPNa is almost exclusively based on ICSI embryos (Table 3). Interestingly, sub-analyses of embryos from couples with female or combined factor subfertility showed an even larger impact of BMI on tPNf (βcrude -0.164 h (95%CI -0.286, -0.042), p = 0.009; βadjusted -0.170 h (95%CI -0.293, -0.047), p = 0.007) and t2 (βcrude -0.194 h (95%CI -0.323, -0.064), p = 0.004; βadjusted -0.199 h (95%CI -0.330, -0.067), p = 0.003) (Table 4).

Table 2 The impact of maternal BMI on morphokinetic parameters
Table 3 The impact of maternal BMI on morphokinetic parameters, stratified for fertilisation method
Table 4 The impact of maternal BMI on morphokinetic parameters of embryos of couples with either a female factor or combined factor subfertility diagnosis (n = 476)

Post-hoc analyses demonstrated a significantly positive beta for t8 in embryos of overweight women, when compared to embryos of normal weight women, (βcrude 1.744 h (95%CI 0.087, 3.401), p = 0.039; βadjusted 2.541 h (95%CI 0.774, 4.308), p = 0.005) (Table 5). Embryos of obese women reached tPNf and t2 faster than embryos of normal weight women (tPNf: βcrude -1.065 h (95%CI -2.082, -0.047), p = 0.040; t2: βcrude -1.311 h (95%CI -2.934, -0.227), p = 0.018; t2: βadjusted -1.101 h (95%CI -2.195, -0.008), p = 0.048).

Table 5 Differences in morphokinetic parameters of embryos from overweight and obese women, compared to embryos of normal weight women

Implantation potential, predicted by the KIDScore

The association between maternal BMI and predicted implantation potential, assessed by the KIDScore, was studied by a proportional odds model. The crude model showed a non-significant effect estimate of -0.019 (se 0.015, p = 0.206), indicating a lower KIDScore for a higher BMI. The adjusted model demonstrated a comparable estimate (β -0.020 (se 0.017), p = 0.218).

Interestingly, sub-analyses of embryos from couples with either a female or a combined factor subfertility diagnosis demonstrated a significant impact of BMI on the KIDScore (βcrude -0.049 (se 0.025), p = 0.052; βadjusted -0.073 (se 0.028), p = 0.010). These observations indicate that a higher maternal BMI has a detrimental impact on the predicted implantation potential of embryos of women with an underlying cause for their subfertility.

Post-hoc analyses of maternal BMI into categories also demonstrated non-significant associations between either overweight or obesity and predicted implantation potential (βoverweight 0.008 (se 0.014, p = 0.547); βobesity -0.253 (se 0.174, p = 0.178)). Similar results were found in the adjusted model (βoverweight 0.126 (se 0.192, p = 0.403); βobesity -0.260 (se 0.192, p = 0.177)).

Pre- and post-transfer clinical treatment outcomes

Crude linear regression analysis was applied to investigate associations between maternal BMI and the tertiary outcomes. The association between maternal BMI and total number of fertilized oocytes showed that for every point increase in BMI, the total number of fertilized oocytes per patient increased 0.024 (95%CI -0.075, 0.124, p = 0.630), yet this was not significant (Table 6). Maternal BMI was also not significantly associated with other pre- or post-transfer clinical treatment outcomes, such as implantation rate (odds ratio 0.994 (95%CI 0.936, 1.054), p = 0.994).

Table 6 The impact of maternal BMI on IVF/ICSI treatment outcome parameters

Post-hoc analyses of pre- and post-transfer clinical treatment outcomes of overweight and obese women as separate groups demonstrated no significant associations, when compared to normal weight women (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7 Post-transfer treatment outcome parameters per BMI category
Table 8 Differences in treatment outcome parameters for overweight and obese women, compared to normal weight women


Summary of findings

This study aimed to investigate the hypothesis that an elevated BMI in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment has a detrimental impact on 1) preimplantation morphokinetic parameters until day 3 of development, 2) predicted implantation potential and 3) pre- and post-transfer clinical treatment outcomes. We observed that a higher maternal BMI is associated with a faster progression through the cleavage stages. No significant association of maternal BMI with predicted implantation potential, as assessed by the KIDScore algorithm, was shown. However, in embryos of couples with female or combined factor subfertility, maternal BMI was associated with faster early embryonic development and lower predicted implantation potential. In addition, no significant associations were shown between maternal BMI and the tertiary clinical treatment outcomes.

When maternal BMI was divided into categories, we observed delayed reaching of the 8-cell stage in embryos of overweight women, whereas embryos of obese women reach the 2-cell stage faster than embryos of normal weight women. Morphokinetic embryonic quality and clinical treatment outcomes were comparable between the three groups.


In the first study investigating the impact of maternal BMI on morphokinetic parameters, embryos of normal weight and obese infertile donors developed comparably [29]. However, recently a delay in late cleavage divisions (t5, t8) was shown for embryos of overweight and obese women, which is (partially) in contrast to our findings [28]. This study is not directly comparable to ours, as ICSI cycles were studied exclusively, whereas we studied both IVF and ICSI cycles. This may have direct implications, by differences in fertilization techniques, as well as indirect, by differences in study population. In contrast to the study of Bartolacci et al., Leary et al. reported that embryos of overweight and obese women reach the morula stage, and subsequently the blastocyst stage, faster than embryos of normal weight women, although these embryos also have a higher rate of cleavage-stage arrest [35]. Although it is beyond the scope of the current study, the impact of maternal BMI on blastocyst formation rate, an important predictor for implantation, remains inconclusive. Some report no impact or negative impact of high maternal BMI on blastocyst formation, whereas a recent large study reports a higher blastocyst formation rate for obese women [35, 37,38,39,40,41].

It is hypothesized that maternal adiposity may have an effect prior to fertilization. The altered metabolic environment, as a result of an imbalanced diet and chronic excessive oxidative stress, contributes to an abnormal follicular microenvironment [20, 42]. This aberrant microenvironment can derange several pathways including the one-carbon metabolism, which is important for numerous processes involved in reproduction, such as protein and DNA synthesis and redox regulation [43]. This hypothesis is supported by mouse studies showing an effect of obesity on oocyte polarization, reactive oxygen species levels and DNA methylation, including methylation of metabolism-related genes, such as the leptin promotor region [44, 45]. In humans, it has been demonstrated that rising BMI affects regulation of oocyte RNA expression and oocyte metabolism [35, 46, 47]. Furthermore, the maternally-inherited genome passively demethylates with each cell-division, reaching the lowest level at the blastocyst stage, whereas the paternally-inherited genome actively demethylates within 8 h after fertilization [48,49,50]. Similarly, studies of human preimplantation embryos show that oocyte molecular programs are gradually degraded during the first 3 days after fertilization and those of the embryo genome are activated, culminating between the 4- and 8-cell stage [51,52,53]. This suggests that early preimplantation embryonic development is primarily driven by the maternal (epi-)genome.

A common cause of female subfertility is polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which is associated with obesity. PCOS is characterized by a combination of polycystic ovaries, hyperadrogenism and anovulation [54, 55]. Research in women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI shows impaired developmental competence of oocytes, yet preimplantation embryonic development is unaffected [56,57,58,59]. In our study, sub-analyses of embryos of women with PCOS demonstrated no significant impact of BMI on morphokinetic parameters (data not shown).

Interestingly, the differences in individual morphokinetic parameters did not translate into differences in the KIDScore distribution. Although the KIDScore is based on only a limited number of parameters, the impact of maternal BMI on these parameters may be too small to induce a shift in the distribution of KIDScores. In embryos of couples with female or combined factor subfertility, however, we found a larger impact of BMI on individual morphokinetic parameters, which may explain the significant negative impact of maternal BMI on the KIDScore. As this is the first study to investigate the impact of maternal BMI on a morphokinetic quality score, comparison to other studies is limited. The KIDScore is a widely applicable morphokinetic (de)selection tool, as it ranks embryo’s according to their implantation potential, regardless of the fertilisation technique used and culture conditions applied [25]. Furthermore, it has a high blastulation predictability and performs superior to conventional morphology evaluation for predicting live births, when applied to day 3 embryos [60]. However, morphokinetic based embryo selection may not be accessible for all fertility clinics, as time-lapse imaging is a relatively expensive technique when compared to conventional culture. In line with this, there are several studies that have investigated the impact of maternal BMI on conventional morphological quality. Although these studies differ in terms of parameters of morphological quality and statistical methods, only one demonstrated an impact of maternal BMI on embryo morphology, suggesting that the impact of maternal BMI on embryonic quality is relatively small [18, 21, 28, 61, 62].

As a tertiary outcome we have addressed the impact of maternal BMI on clinical treatment outcomes in our dataset and found no significant associations. It is very likely that the absence of significant findings can be explained by a lack of power. Yet, the detrimental impact of maternal BMI on success rates of IVF/ICSI treatment has been widely shown in other studies. A recent meta-analysis of over 600,000 women reported a 15% smaller chance of a live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment for obese women compared to normal weight women [63]. Moreover, an additional factor in post-transfer outcomes is the uterine environment. A large retrospective study of over 9,500 normal weight oocyte donors reported lower success rates for obese recipients than for normal weight recipients [64]. Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity alters endometrial receptivity are poorly understood, it is suggested that decidualisation is impaired by genetic dysregulation [65,66,67].

Strengths and limitations

By applying a standardized method to measure BMI prior to IVF/ICSI treatment, instead of relying on self-reported data, we reduced the risk of response bias. Moreover, BMI was also categorized according to the World Health Organization classification to facilitate comparison between studies. Statistical strengths are the application of linear mixed model analyses, which takes the clustering-effect of multiple embryos from one women into account, and adjustments for important treatment factors and paternal factors such as age and BMI, so that maternal effects could be studied independently. Another strength is the use of the KIDScore to evaluate embryonic morphokinetic quality at day 3 after fertilization. This deselection tool is universally applicable and has area under the curve of 0.65 for prediction of implantation, which can be considered as a fair predictor [25].

The main limitation of our study is that we have only data until day 3 of development and not until the blastocyst stage, as this is associated with higher rates of pregnancy and live birth [68]. This study was conducted in a time in which fresh transfer of cleavage embryos was routine care in most IVF clinics, including ours, but future research should include embryonic development until day 5. Also, due to the inclusion of IVF treatments, the moment of pronuclear appearance could not be observed in these cases. Although the diverse study population, increases the generalizability of our results, it can also be considered a weakness. As it included both IVF and ICSI treatments and different stimulation protocols, it is a source of possible bias and may elicit divergent results. Furthermore, it is standard care at our clinic to only perform IVF/ICSI treatment in women with a BMI < 34 kg/m2, as IVF/ICSI treatment in women with a higher BMI is rarely feasible and associated with increased pregnancy complications [69]. Nonetheless, this practice induces a selection bias for this study. Also, our study population did not comprise any women with underweight. This limited the possibilities to investigate the impact of the full range of maternal BMI. Finally, this study was performed at a tertiary university based hospital. Although not all subfertile couples were in need of tertiary referral or care, our results cannot be automatically extrapolated to the general subfertile population, which may have consequences for the external validity of this study.


In this study we show that maternal BMI is positively associated with faster progression through the pronuclear and early cleavage stages and negatively with embryo implantation potential. So far, and very likely due to lack of power no associations between maternal BMI and clinical treatment outcomes were observed.

Overweight and obesity are complex diseases and often the result of the interplay between nutrition, lifestyle and genetics. Future research is needed to elucidate the pathophysiological processes involved in the effects of maternal BMI on preimplantation development. Possible explanations might be found in alterations in oocyte quality, DNA damage and decreased cytoplasmic quality, as we observed an impact of maternal BMI on embryo quality in couples with female or combined factor subfertility. In addition, potential metabolic alterations underlying the observed differences in preimplantation development may also have consequences for post-implantation development. Although not demonstrated in this study, the negative effect of increased BMI on ART treatment outcomes has been widely reported. Moreover, maternal overweight and obesity have serious implications for pregnancy outcome and offspring health. Therefore, it is recommended to optimise lifestyle to achieve a healthy weight prior to IVF/ICSI treatment, for example by effective eHealth coaching programs [70, 71]. A healthy weight maximises the general efficiency of the treatment is and minimises alterations in the (early) development of the future generation are minimised.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Anti-Müllerian hormone


Body mass index


Confidence interval


Embryo transfer


Follicle stimulating hormone


Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone


Human chorionic gonadotrophin


Intraclass correlation coefficient


Intracytoplasmic sperm injection


In vitro fertilization


Odds ratio


Polycystic ovarian syndrome


Pronuclear appearance


Pronuclear fading


  1. 1.

    Ng M, Fleming T, Robinson M, Thomson B, Graetz N, Margono C, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384(9945):766–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Marti A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Martinez JA. Interaction between genes and lifestyle factors on obesity. Proc Nutr Soc. 2008;67(1):1–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wright SM, Aronne LJ. Causes of obesity. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(5):730–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Redinger RN. The pathophysiology of obesity and its clinical manifestations. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2007;3(11):856–63.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(8):579–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Dietz WH, Vinicor F, Bales VS, et al. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA. 2003;289(1):76–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Overweight and obesity - BMI statistics: Eurostat; 2020 [updated 4/23/2020]. Available from: Accessed 21 Dec 2020.

  8. 8.

    Lashen H, Fear K, Sturdee DW. Obesity is associated with increased risk of first trimester and recurrent miscarriage: matched case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(7):1644–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD, Hompes PG, Burggraaff JM, et al. Obesity affects spontaneous pregnancy chances in subfertile, ovulatory women. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):324–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dag ZO, Dilbaz B. Impact of obesity on infertility in women. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2015;16(2):111–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Watson RR. Handbook of fertility: nutrition, diet, lifestyle and reproductive health. In: Watson RR, editor. 1st ed. Cambridge: Academic; 2015; 2015. p. 120–7.

  12. 12.

    Spandorfer SD, Kump L, Goldschlag D, Brodkin T, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Obesity and in vitro fertilization: negative influences on outcome. J Reprod Med. 2004;49(12):973–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fedorcsak P, Storeng R, Dale PO, Tanbo T, Abyholm T. Obesity is a risk factor for early pregnancy loss after IVF or ICSI. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(1):43–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moragianni VA, Jones SM, Ryley DA. The effect of body mass index on the outcomes of first assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):102–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Metwally M, Li TC, Ledger WL. The impact of obesity on female reproductive function. Obes Rev. 2007;8(6):515–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Valckx SD, De Pauw I, De Neubourg D, Inion I, Berth M, Fransen E, et al. BMI-related metabolic composition of the follicular fluid of women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment and the consequences for oocyte and embryo quality. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3531–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bellver J, Melo MA, Bosch E, Serra V, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Obesity and poor reproductive outcome: the potential role of the endometrium. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):446–51.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Metwally M, Cutting R, Tipton A, Skull J, Ledger WL, Li TC. Effect of increased body mass index on oocyte and embryo quality in IVF patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15(5):532–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Song J, Xiang S, Pang C, Guo J, Sun Z. Metabolomic alternations of follicular fluid of obese women undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5968.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Robker RL, Akison LK, Bennett BD, Thrupp PN, Chura LR, Russell DL, et al. Obese women exhibit differences in ovarian metabolites, hormones, and gene expression compared with moderate-weight women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(5):1533–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sathya A, Balasubramanyam S, Gupta S, Verma T. Effect of body mass index on in vitro fertilization outcomes in women. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2010;3(3):135–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zander-Fox DL, Henshaw R, Hamilton H, Lane M. Does obesity really matter? The impact of BMI on embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes after IVF in women aged ≤38 years. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(3):270–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Carrell DT, Jones KP, Peterson CM, Aoki V, Emery BR, Campbell BR. Body mass index is inversely related to intrafollicular HCG concentrations, embryo quality and IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2001;3(2):109–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(3):532–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2231–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Freour T, Dessolle L, Lammers J, Lattes S, Barriere P. Comparison of embryo morphokinetics after in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection in smoking and nonsmoking women. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1944–50.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wissing ML, Bjerge MR, Olesen AI, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. Impact of PCOS on early embryo cleavage kinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(4):508–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bartolacci A, Buratini J, Moutier C, Guglielmo MC, Novara PV, Brambillasca F, et al. Maternal body mass index affects embryo morphokinetics: a time-lapse study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(6):1109–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bellver J, Mifsud A, Grau N, Privitera L, Meseguer M. Similar morphokinetic patterns in embryos derived from obese and normoweight infertile women: a time-lapse study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(3):794–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Steegers-Theunissen RP, Verheijden-Paulissen JJ, van Uitert EM, Wildhagen MF, Exalto N, Koning AH, et al. Cohort profile: the Rotterdam periconceptional cohort (predict study). Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(2):374–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(1):166–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NG, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9563):743–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Dhont M, editor. WHO-classification of anovulation: background, evidence and problems. International Congress Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005.

  34. 34.

    Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2650–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Leary C, Leese HJ, Sturmey RG. Human embryos from overweight and obese women display phenotypic and metabolic abnormalities. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):122–32.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bodri D, Sugimoto T, Serna JY, Kondo M, Kato R, Kawachiya S, et al. Influence of different oocyte insemination techniques on early and late morphokinetic parameters: retrospective analysis of 500 time-lapse monitored blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1175-81.e1-2.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rittenberg V, Sobaleva S, Ahmad A, Oteng-Ntim E, Bolton V, Khalaf Y, et al. Influence of BMI on risk of miscarriage after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2642–50.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Sarais V, Pagliardini L, Rebonato G, Papaleo E, Candiani M, Vigano P. A comprehensive analysis of body mass index effect on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Nutrients. 2016;8(3):109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zhang JJ, Feret M, Chang L, Yang M, Merhi Z. Obesity adversely impacts the number and maturity of oocytes in conventional IVF not in minimal stimulation IVF. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31(5):409–13.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kim J, Patounakis G, Juneau C, Morin S, Neal S, Bergh P, et al. The Appraisal of Body Content (ABC) trial: increased male or female adiposity does not significantly impact in vitro fertilization laboratory or clinical outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(2):444–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Comstock IA, Kim S, Behr B, Lathi RB. Increased body mass index negatively impacts blastocyst formation rate in normal responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(9):1299–304.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ruebel ML, Piccolo BD, Mercer KE, Pack L, Moutos D, Shankar K, et al. Obesity leads to distinct metabolomic signatures in follicular fluid of women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2019;316(3):E383–96.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Steegers-Theunissen RP, Twigt J, Pestinger V, Sinclair KD. The periconceptional period, reproduction and long-term health of offspring: the importance of one-carbon metabolism. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(6):640–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hou YJ, Zhu CC, Duan X, Liu HL, Wang Q, Sun SC. Both diet and gene mutation induced obesity affect oocyte quality in mice. Sci Rep. 2016;6:18858.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ge ZJ, Luo SM, Lin F, Liang QX, Huang L, Wei YC, et al. DNA methylation in oocytes and liver of female mice and their offspring: effects of high-fat-diet-induced obesity. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(2):159–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ruebel ML, Cotter M, Sims CR, Moutos DM, Badger TM, Cleves MA, et al. Obesity modulates inflammation and lipid metabolism oocyte gene expression: a single-cell transcriptome perspective. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(6):2029–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Llonch S, Barragan M, Nieto P, Mallol A, Elosua-Bayes M, Lorden P, et al. Single human oocyte transcriptome analysis reveals distinct maturation stage-dependent pathways impacted by age. Aging Cell. 2021;20(5):e13360.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Mayer W, Fandele R, Haaf T. Spatial separation of parental genomes during mouse interspecific (Mus musculus x M. spretus) spermiogenesis. Chromosome Res. 2000;8(6):555–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Howlett SK, Reik W. Methylation levels of maternal and paternal genomes during preimplantation development. Development. 1991;113(1):119–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Rivera RM, Ross JW. Epigenetics in fertilization and preimplantation embryo development. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2013;113(3):423–32.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Niakan KK, Han J, Pedersen RA, Simon C, Pera RA. Human pre-implantation embryo development. Development. 2012;139(5):829–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332(6163):459–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J. High-resolution autoradiographic localization of DNA-containing sites and RNA synthesis in developing nucleoli of human preimplantation embryos: a new concept of embryonic nucleologenesis. Development. 1987;101(4):777–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Rotterdam EA-SPCWG. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(1):19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Wiegel RE, Jansen PW, Laven JSE, Sinclair KD. Polycystic ovary syndrome: a brain disorder characterized by eating problems originating during puberty and adolescence. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(21):8211.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Dumesic DA, Abbott DH. Implications of polycystic ovary syndrome on oocyte development. Semin Reprod Med. 2008;26(1):53–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Sundvall L, Kirkegaard K, Ingerslev HJ, Knudsen UB. Unaltered timing of embryo development in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS): a time-lapse study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1031–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Tam Le M, Van Nguyen T, Thanh Nguyen T, Thanh Thi Nguyen T, An Thi Nguyen T, Huy Vu Nguyen Q, et al. Does polycystic ovary syndrome affect morphokinetics or abnormalities in early embryonic development? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;3:100045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga JM, Chouraqui A, Tesquier A, Serkine AM, et al. [Oocyte and embryo quality in polycystic ovary syndrome] Qualite des ovocytes et embryons dans le syndrome des ovaires polykystiques. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2003;31(4):350–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Adolfsson E, Porath S, Andershed AN. External validation of a time-lapse model; a retrospective study comparing embryo evaluation using a morphokinetic model to standard morphology with live birth as endpoint. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22(3):205–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Bellver J, Ayllon Y, Ferrando M, Melo M, Goyri E, Pellicer A, et al. Female obesity impairs in vitro fertilization outcome without affecting embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):447–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Shah DK, Missmer SA, Berry KF, Racowsky C, Ginsburg ES. Effect of obesity on oocyte and embryo quality in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):63–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Sermondade N, Huberlant S, Bourhis-Lefebvre V, Arbo E, Gallot V, Colombani M, et al. Female obesity is negatively associated with live birth rate following IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(4):439–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Bellver J, Pellicer A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Ballesteros A, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Obesity reduces uterine receptivity: clinical experience from 9,587 first cycles of ovum donation with normal weight donors. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):1050–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Rhee JS, Saben JL, Mayer AL, Schulte MB, Asghar Z, Stephens C, et al. Diet-induced obesity impairs endometrial stromal cell decidualization: a potential role for impaired autophagy. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1315–26.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ujvari D, Jakson I, Babayeva S, Salamon D, Rethi B, Gidlof S, et al. Dysregulation of in vitro decidualization of human endometrial stromal cells by insulin via transcriptional inhibition of forkhead box protein O1. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0171004.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Bellver J, Martinez-Conejero JA, Labarta E, Alama P, Melo MA, Remohi J, et al. Endometrial gene expression in the window of implantation is altered in obese women especially in association with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2335-41.e1-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016(6):CD002118.

  69. 69.

    Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(2):219–24.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Steegers-Theunissen R, Hoek A, Groen H, Bos A, van den Dool G, Schoonenberg M, et al. Pre-conception interventions for subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment: modeling analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e19570.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Oostingh EC, Koster MPH, van Dijk MR, Willemsen SP, Broekmans FJM, Hoek A, et al. First effective mHealth nutrition and lifestyle coaching program for subfertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: a single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(5):945–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We gratefully acknowledge the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort team for data acquisition. Furthermore, we thank all staff members from the outpatient Fertility clinic and laboratory and the participating couples, gynecologists, and midwifery practices in Rotterdam for their contributions.


This research was funded by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and the Erasmus MC Medical Research Advisor Committee’s ‘Health Care Efficiency Research’ program (OZBS72.16080).

Author information




EB and RST initiated the research question and supervised all aspects of the study. JL was responsible for the IVF and ICSI patients. EB was responsible for time-lapse imaging. LvD, JH, EB and EvM contributed to data acquisition. SW and MR initiated and supervised the statistical procedures of the manuscript. LvD, MR, and EB wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the writing and the critical revisions of the manuscript and all authors approved the final version of the manuscript and authorized the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Régine P. M. Steegers-Theunissen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Medical Ethical and Institutional Review Board of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (MEC-2004-227).

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from all women at enrollment.

Competing interests

Dr. Laven reports grants and personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Titus Healthcare, grants and personal fees from Ansh Labs, grants from NIH, grants from Dutch Heart Association, grants from ZonMW, outside the submitted work. None of the other authors have a conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplemental table 1.

Morpokinetic parameters of the KIDScore algorithm. Supplemental table 2. Female type of subfertility, stratified for maternal BMI.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Duijn, L., Rousian, M., Hoek, J. et al. Higher preconceptional maternal body mass index is associated with faster early preimplantation embryonic development: the Rotterdam periconception cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 19, 145 (2021).

Download citation


  • Body mass index
  • Time-lapse
  • Morphokinetics
  • Embryo development
  • Preimplantation