www.lesswrong.com/posts/dxffBxGqt2eidxwRR/the-optimal-age-to-freeze-eggs-is-19#t...
2 corrections found
The optimal age to freeze eggs varies depending on the source and metric, but almost all sources agree it's sometime between 19 and 26.
This is contradicted by peer‑reviewed cost/benefit decision analyses, which find the most cost‑effective (or largest benefit-over-no-action) timing is around ages 36–37, not 19–26.
Full reasoning
The post claims near-consensus that the “optimal” age is 19–26. But published decision-analytic and cost-benefit models (which are explicitly a “metric” for optimality) place the optimum in the mid-to-late 30s.
For example, Mesen et al. (Fertility and Sterility, 2015) modeled elective oocyte cryopreservation at different ages and found that oocyte cryopreservation was most cost-effective at age 37 (and that ages 25–30 showed only small benefit over doing nothing). That directly contradicts the claim that almost all sources agree the optimal age is 19–26.
A newer cost-benefit analysis presented in Human Reproduction (2025 supplement abstract) similarly reports “most cost-effective at age 36” for a five-year time-to-conception scenario—again outside 19–26.
Because credible, peer-reviewed sources using a clear optimization metric place the “optimal age” well above 26, the statement that “almost all sources agree” on 19–26 is not accurate.
2 sources
- Optimal timing for elective egg freezing (Fertility and Sterility, 2015)
Decision-tree model (ages 25–40). Results: “Oocyte cryopreservation provided the greatest improvement in probability of live birth compared to no action … when performed at age 37… [and] was most cost-effective at age 37.” Also notes little benefit over no action at ages 25–30.
- P-375 A cost-benefit analysis for determining the optimal age for elective oocyte cryopreservation (Human Reproduction, 2025 supplement abstract)
“Summary answer: Oocyte preservation is most cost-effective at age 36 for those attempting natural conception …” (i.e., an ‘optimal age’ outside 19–26).
Parents who go through IVF can now boost their children's IQ, decrease their risk of diseases like Alzheimer's, depression and diabetes, and even make their children less likely to drop out of high school by picking an embryo with a genetic predisposition towards any of these outcomes.
Major reproductive-medicine and human-genetics societies state that polygenic embryo screening/testing is not ready for clinical use and has low-to-nonexistent clinical utility, so presenting it as something parents “can now” use to achieve these outcomes is misleading.
Full reasoning
The post presents polygenic embryo screening (PGT-P) as a currently actionable, reliable way for IVF parents to select embryos to “boost IQ” and reduce risks for complex diseases and social outcomes.
However, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) publicly concluded (Dec 8, 2025) that polygenic embryo screening/testing “is not ready for clinical practice and should not be offered as a reproductive service at this time,” citing predictive uncertainties and lack of evidence for predictive accuracy/safety/clinical value. That directly conflicts with the post’s framing that parents can now use it to deliver the stated benefits.
Similarly, ESHRE (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology) states that while PRSs can be useful at the population level, individual predictions are highly unreliable and that in embryo selection settings the clinical utility “remains at this time low to non-existent” and cannot be supported in clinical practice.
Given these authoritative, explicit statements from major professional societies, it is misleading to describe polygenic embryo selection as something parents can presently use to reliably obtain the outcomes claimed (e.g., boosting a child’s IQ or meaningfully reducing multifactorial disease risk) as a clinical service.
2 sources
- ASRM Ethics and Practice Committees Release New Report Concluding Polygenic Embryo Screening Is Not Ready for Clinical Use (Dec 8, 2025)
ASRM states the report concludes PGT-P “is not ready for clinical practice and should not be offered… at this time,” and that “current evidence does not support the predictive accuracy, safety, or clinical value of polygenic embryo screening.”
- ESHRE position statement on embryo selection based on polygenic risk scores (PRS)
ESHRE states “individual predictions are highly unreliable” and that for embryo selection “the clinical utility of PRS remains at this time low to non-existent and cannot be supported in clinical practice.”