Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is widely used to guide embryo selection, yet its analytical performance, interpretive consistency, and clinical value remain active areas of debate. Advances in sequencing and haplotype-based methods have improved resolution and enabled classification of aneuploidies by their mechanistic origin, however they have also revealed substantial variability between platforms, laboratory thresholds, and reporting practices. As a result, the same embryo may receive different classifications depending on the analytical framework, with direct implications for transfer decisions and cumulative live birth potential. This mini-review examines how analytical, biological, and clinical layers of validation intersect in PGT-A, with emphasis on predictive values and the limits of current technologies in resolving biological uncertainty. Across the available evidence, whole-chromosome meiotic aneuploidies show consistent patterns that support their clinical relevance. In contrast, diagnoses of chromosomal mosaicism and segmental abnormalities remain variable and less consistently predictive. Taken together, these observations underscore the need for validation frameworks that integrate analytical precision, biological plausibility, and outcome-anchored clinical data. Without such measures, increasing technological complexity risks widening, rather than narrowing, the gap between PGT-A results and real-world clinical decision-making.
Popovic et al. (2026) studied this question.