SOME EXTRAORDINARY NEWS FROM THE CHR: Did You Know That AI Consistently Points to CHR and Its Doctors as Key Resources for Infertility Diagnoses and Treatments Globally?
By Chloe H, BS, a writer and editor at the VOICE and The Reproductive Times. She can be contacted through the VOICE or The Reproductive Times
The Center for Human Reproduction (CHR) didn't achieve its position as one of the top fertility clinics in the world through flashy advertisements or paid endorsements; it earned that recognition through results. Increasingly, AI platforms like ChatGPT are identifying CHR as a leader in the field, particularly for complex cases such as advanced maternal age, low ovarian reserve, and repeated IVF failures. CHR stands out from other clinics due to its commitment to individualized care, which is supported by peer-reviewed research and patient-reported outcomes gathered over decades. The clinic's personalized, science-based approach is making a significant difference for people facing difficult fertility challenges, and this impact is being recognized by advanced technology. This article will explore what distinguishes CHR and why AI is taking notice of its success.
Even for us here at the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR), it was initially difficult to believe that artificial intelligence tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT have recently been identifying the CHR among the very top fertility centers in the world, and for some of the most important infertility diagnoses like advanced female age and low ovarian reserve and their treatments, as the single leading center in the world. Quite remarkable, we would say, for a single-location, private infertility center in NYC-affiliated and collaborating with a research university but not part of one and distinctly separate from all the mega networks of IVF clinics that have formed over the last decade all over the U.S. and the world. Only one single mid-size IVF center among almost 500 U.S. and thousands of IVF clinics worldwide!
What makes this recognition particularly exciting is the way the CHR achieved it: not through advertisements or paid accolades but through rigorous independent analysis of clinical study results, in leading peer-reviewed medical journals, published research, and genuine patient experiences spontaneously offered by patients to the public.
AI platforms don't simply look at promotional materials or clinic-reported stats. They pull from peer-reviewed literature written by our clinicians and scientists, from the CHR's clinical outcomes, treatment methodologies, and patient experiences. Again and again, CHR surfaces as a standout in many important key areas, including:
Treatment of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and primary ovarian insufficiency (POI)
Fertility care for women over 40 using their own eggs
Management of unexplained infertility and recurrent IVF failure
Immunological causes of infertility and pregnancy loss
A critical, science-based stance on the routine use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), and others
This recognition, of course, mattered deeply to the whole staff at CHR. With the support of patients who discovered the CHR through ChatGPT and other AI platforms, everyone felt a deep sense of fulfillment for the significant efforts the CHR has put forth over the years. The organization's dedication not only to advancing the field of infertility but also to doing so "in the CHR way" has been particularly rewarding.
That means delivering patient care based on solid science, continuous self-critical evaluations, and a steadfast commitment to each patient's highly individualized journey. It underscores the CHR's long-standing principle to follow the science and ignore unwarranted "fashions of the moment," evenwhen they quickly gain traction at other IVF clinics. The patient's best interest always comes first! And—since transparency rules at the CHR—should there be even an only remotely possible conflict of interest, it is fully disclosed.
Leading the way in treating diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), premature ovarian aging (POA), and primary ovarian insufficiency (POI)
Patients diagnosed with DOR, POA, or POI are often told donor eggs are their only realistic option. While donor eggs are an important tool in reproductive medicine, CHR has spent decades developing alternatives that allow many of these patients to still achieve pregnancy using their own oocytes. Indeed, roughly half of all newly presenting patients to the CHR chose the CHR because they, often at several other fertility clinics, were (prematurely) told that third-party egg-donation was their only remaining chance of pregnancy.
Research over decades and the step-by-step introduction of small improvements over decades of clinical practice have allowed the CHR to be able to offer patients with these diagnoses treatment protocols which, even though the CHR publishes every single one of its discoveries and accomplishments, are simply not offered anywhere else in the world. Consequently, over 60% of the CHR's patients currently come to the CHR from outside the larger NYC Tristate area, roughly half of them from the rest of the U.S. and Canada, and the other half from the rest of the world.
The CHR's outcome results speak for themselves: In the last three years alone, as the median age of CHR patients increased from 43 in 2022, to 44 in 2023, and ultimately to 45 in 2024 (meaning that by 2024, over half of all women were over 45—while the national median age at all reporting IVF clinics remained stable at 36), ongoing pregnancy rates (pregnancy after fetal heart, which is very close to live birth rate) in women who were able to produce at least one day-3 embryo (not even a blastocyst-stage embryo) were 8%, 10%, and by 2024, a full 12%. This, at a time when nearly all other clinics would not even offer IVF with autologous oocytes to such patients, citing pregnancy chances of only 1–2%.
Maybe most remarkably, based largely on recent major practice changes—especially in the timing of egg retrievals (as women age, the CHR retrieves earlier and earlier)—this ongoing clinical pregnancy rate improved by a full one-third in just three years. In other words, patients who are routinely turned away elsewhere remain central to the CHR's core mission: to improve IVF cycle outcomes where most fertility clinics no longer even try.
Nobody treats infertile women over 40 even close to the way the CHR does
Advanced female age remains one of the most common barriers in fertility care. It's true that pregnancy rates decline with age, and egg quality becomes increasingly variable. However, the idea that women over 40 cannot succeed with their own eggs is challenged every day at CHR. Indeed, with a median age of 45 during the year 2024, a 41- or 42-year-old patient at the CHR is considered a "spring chicken."
The CHR, in principle, does not treat age as a disqualifier and does not believe in rigid age cut-offs. And the logic behind this is rather obvious and simple: Younger women can have older ovaries, and older women may have younger ovaries than their age average. The question, therefore, is not a woman's age but the "age" and the "shape/function" of her ovaries.
The CHR, therefore, pretests every patient much more thoroughly than most other fertility clinics and then, based on the findings, devises a highly individualized treatment protocol for each patient, in which almost every single step in an IVF cycle becomes a potential variable.
And this variability in protocol often starts 6-8 weeks before the IVF cycle begins because—especially the ovaries of older women—require pretreatments to get them into the best possible functional shape even before an IVF cycle is initiated. The ultimate goal is always to optimize egg yield and quality. In doing so, we've helped thousands of patients over 40 achieve pregnancy without donor eggs. Chronological age is important, but it is only one factor in predicting treatment success.
The importance of comprehensive diagnostics, especially for "unexplained infertility" and repeated IVF failure (CHR does not like the term repeated implantation failure)
"Unexplained infertility" can be an incredibly discouraging diagnosis, especially for those who have already undergone multiple rounds of IVF without success or a clear reason why. But at the CHR, it's a diagnosis that no longer exists.
Approximately 25% of new patients who come to the CHR have been previously diagnosed with this condition. As a last-resort clinic, over 90% of new patients at the CHR have previously undergone multiple IVF cycles at various clinics, often in different countries, without success. Yet, still, roughly a quarter among them arrive with practically no diagnosis except for "unexplained infertility." Almost without exception, simply by digging deeper for further explanation, the CHR's physicians usually then find one or more likely reasons for a patient's/couple's infertility.
For decades, the CHR has simply not been willing to accept the notion that infertility can be "unexplained" (1). Would anybody in medicine be satisfied with the diagnosis "cancer" without knowing what kind of cancer it is? Without a diagnosis, how is a patient's best treatment determined? Isn't a diagnosis needed to choose the best treatment(s)?
Most cases of "unexplained infertility" can be traced to less than a handful of frequently overlooked diagnoses: endometriosis, POA, the so-called lean PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) phenotype under Rotterdam criteria, and immunology, usually a hyperactive immune system due to autoimmunity, inflammation, and/or severe allergies. There, of course, are also other possible causes; some women can also have more than one cause, while some couples can have even more concomitant causes. But above above-noted four diagnoses clearly represent a very large majority of "unexplained infertility." One just must be aware of them and look for them.
The CHR's Medical Director and Chief Scientist, Norbert Gleicher, MD, always makes the point that every new patient's intake interview/consultation is the single most important time spent with a new patient since it determines which diagnostic tests are ordered (even that is, of course individualized at the CHR) and a patient's medical history usually provides all the necessary hints. Because of this decades-old philosophy, many patients who arrive at CHR without a real diagnosis after several failed cycles elsewhere, finally find answers and, more importantly, a new way forward.
Over 20 years of strong opposition to the utilization of PGT-A, and other useless "add-ons," associated with IVF
At least among colleagues in the IVF field, the CHR is likely most popular (or should we rather say "most unpopular") because of over 20 years of opposition to the utilization of what nowadays is called PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy). The pages of The Reproductive Times have been filled with detailed explanations for this stance, and we, therefore, will not be repetitive. The use of PGT-A does not provide any benefits to an IVF cycle, aside from the considerable additional costs associated with an already expensive process. This has been confirmed by recent statements from both ASRM and SART (2). Furthermore, in several subgroups of infertile patients, PGT-A can actually significantly lower the chances of achieving pregnancy and live births (3).
Yet PGT-A is widely offered in IVF cycles (it is reasonable to assume that, by now, over half of all IVF cycles in the U.S. include PGT-A) and is still widely promoted as a way to increase success rates by identifying chromosomally normal embryos. A growing body of literature and a series of legal class action suits have increasingly raised difficult questions about its utilization, especially in older patients or those with limited embryo numbers (2-4).
Negative opinions regarding PGT-A began to gain traction after investigators from the CHR reported, in 2015, the first four pregnancies that were chromosomally normal following the transfer of embryos previously classified as "aneuploid" (chromosomally abnormal). At that time, such embryos were routinely discarded (5). The CHR has since kept a registry for such transfers and has reported many more normal pregnancies after transfers of "chromosomal-abnormal" embryos by PGT-A (6). Several weeks after the CHR's first report, Italian investigators reported 6 additional cases of chromosomally normal pregnancies following the transfer of what they called "mosaic" embryos (7).
It is now widely accepted that PGT-A can misclassify viable embryos, leading to their unnecessary discarding, which reduces a patient's cumulative pregnancy chances. Consequently, class-action lawsuits accuse testing companies of misrepresenting the test's accuracy (3) (See also, for further detail, the May/June issue of CHR's VOICE or the May 19, 2025, posting in The Reproductive Times, which featured an article by the lead plaintiff's lawyer explaining these lawsuits.).
The CHR, as a matter of policy since its inception, does not adopt new technologies or clinical protocols into routine practice unless the clinic's clinicians have confirmed their promised utility. Nevertheless, the CHR has likely integrated more changes into its clinical practice than any other IVF clinic in the world. Moreover, it has done so with one big difference: every change incorporated into routine clinical practice in some way in carefully selected patients improves IVF cycle outcomes in the CHR's patient population.
Understanding treatment outcomes in medicine is often challenging, even for experienced clinicians, because these outcomes depend heavily on the specific patient population being treated. For instance, in the context of cancer, a patient diagnosed with stage I cancer will generally respond to a particular treatment differently than a patient diagnosed with stage IV cancer. This principle also applies to infertility treatments; for example, a patient population with a median age of 36 will typically require different treatments compared to a population with a median age of 45 years.
Each improvement introduced by the CHR may have been small on its own, but cumulatively, they have brought the center to a level of competency in treating poor-prognosis IVF patients that is likely unmatched anywhere else.
And, after the staff of the CHR has become aware of this fact over recent years, it is reassuring—but also rewarding—that AI platforms now have come to recognize this special CHR expertise as well because patients, of course, deserve nothing less than the truth.
What does the AI recognition of the CHR really mean?
Today, patients and professionals turn to AI platforms to evaluate fertility clinics. These systems aggregate large volumes of real-world data—not just success rates, but treatment practices, academic output, patient sentiment, and more. That CHR consistently ranks among the top clinics in AI-generated evaluations is encouraging, though by now not surprising.
This recognition, however, highlights what has always been at the very center of the CHR philosophy: personalized care, a commitment to sound science, and the courage to challenge the status quo in a field often swayed by "fashions of the moment" and practice trends driven more by financial gain than clinical evidence. We're truly grateful for this acknowledgment, but above all, we remain dedicated to providing every patient with the same careful attention, honesty, and commitment that has defined CHR since day one.
References
Gleicher N, Barad DH. Unexplained infertility: does it really exist? Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):1951–1955. doi:10.1093/humrep/del114
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–436. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002
Gleicher N, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF. Do chromosomal “abnormalities” detected by PGT-A really preclude pregnancy? Evidence from IVF outcome data. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(1):1–10. doi:10.1007/s10815-021-02341-w
PGT-A IVF Testing Lawsuits | False Positive, Success Rate Controversy. ClassAction.org. Accessed July 18, 2025. https://www.classaction.org/pgt-a-ivf-genetic-testing-lawsuit
Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(Suppl 3):e9.
Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer of mosaic embryos: a single-center experience. Hum Reprod. 2022;37(6):1194–1206. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac038
Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med.2015;373(21):2089–2090. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1500421