Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct faculty typically have an academic or research appointment at another institution and contribute or collaborate with one or more School of Medicine faculty members or programs.
Adjunct rank detailsThomas D'Hooghe, MD, PhD
Professor (Adjunct) of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive SciencesAbout
Research
Publications
2026
Intra-Patient Variability in the Number of Retrieved Oocytes and Ovarian Response Categories Between Consecutive IVF Cycles
Hochberg A, Reuvenny S, Itzhak N, Luz A, Hourvitz R, Moran E, Polyzos N, Hariton E, Zheng W, D'Hooghe T, Maman E, Baum M, Youngster M, Hourvitz A. Intra-Patient Variability in the Number of Retrieved Oocytes and Ovarian Response Categories Between Consecutive IVF Cycles. Fertility And Sterility 2026 PMID: 41856348, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2026.03.020.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchOvarian response categoriesOocyte yieldOvarian stimulationIntra-patient variabilityOS protocolOS cyclesConsecutive in vitro fertilizationPercentage changeOocyte countMature oocyte yieldConsecutive IVF cyclesMedian percentage changeAge groupsGonadotropin typeRetrieved oocytesGonadotropin dosageIVF cyclesBaseline characteristicsDaily dosePatient baseline profilesHyper-responsivenessOocyte numberPrimary outcomeSecondary outcomesPatientsComparative effectiveness of r-hFSH:r-hLH in a 2:1 ratio versus HP-hMG alone in ovarian stimulation for medically assisted reproduction treatment using IVF/ICSI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dahan M, Schwarze J, Gupta S, Hayward B, Fischer R, Esteves S, Chen M, Silverberg K, Guzmán L, Santi D, Feferkorn I, D’Hooghe T, Alviggi C. Comparative effectiveness of r-hFSH:r-hLH in a 2:1 ratio versus HP-hMG alone in ovarian stimulation for medically assisted reproduction treatment using IVF/ICSI: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic And Obstetric Investigation 2026, 1-25. PMID: 41729769, DOI: 10.1159/000550420.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchClinical pregnancy rateHP-hMGOvarian stimulationR-hLHPregnancy rateR-hFSHOocyte numberMedically assisted reproduction treatmentsRecombinant human luteinizing hormoneGood-quality embryosLive birth rateRecombinant human follicle stimulating hormoneLive birth outcomesHuman menopausal gonadotropinMeta-analysisDay 1Secondary outcomesHuman follicle stimulating hormoneReproduction treatmentBirth rateMeta-analysis of published evidenceFollicle stimulating hormoneCross-over studyNon-interventional studyMenopausal gonadotropin
2025
Live birth in patients stimulated with r-hFSH or r-hFSH: r-hLH is strongly associated with cumulus cell derived gene expression models
Adriaenssens T, Van Vaerenbergh I, Van Leuven W, Coucke W, Montenegro S, Zheng W, D’Hooghe T, Van Landuyt L, De Munck N, Van Hecke E, Smitz J, Rosenthal A, Blockeel C. Live birth in patients stimulated with r-hFSH or r-hFSH: r-hLH is strongly associated with cumulus cell derived gene expression models. Reproductive Biology And Endocrinology 2025, 23: 163. PMID: 41275247, PMCID: PMC12751414, DOI: 10.1186/s12958-025-01480-2.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsR-hFSHR-hLHStudy groupTime-to-pregnancyCumulus cellsICSI patientsLive birthsBiomarker expressionCumulus cells of oocytesMethodsThis observational cohort studyUZ BrusselInterventional prospective studyObservational cohort studyEthics CommitteePGT-AHP-hMGIVF/ICSI cyclesPredictive biomarkersProspective studyART cyclesCohort studyGene expression profilesPatient characteristicsPatient groupEmbryo assessmentConsistency in treatment effects and statistical significance between early-stage pregnancy endpoints and live birth in randomized controlled trials of infertility: a systematic meta-epidemiological study
Feng Q, Li W, Crispin J, Longobardi S, D'Hooghe T, Li W, Mol B. Consistency in treatment effects and statistical significance between early-stage pregnancy endpoints and live birth in randomized controlled trials of infertility: a systematic meta-epidemiological study. Fertility And Sterility 2025, 125: 356-366. PMID: 40876726, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.025.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchPregnancy EndpointsRandomized Controlled TrialsLive birthsClinical pregnancyLive birth dataStatistical significanceInfertility treatmentBirth dataMedically assisted reproduction treatmentsTreatment effectsMeta-epidemiological studyCorrelation of treatment effectsBiochemical pregnancySpearman's rhoChi-square testOvarian stimulationSubfertile womenPregnancy lossPregnancy dataPregnancyReproduction treatmentControlled TrialsGold standardInfertilityEndpointWeighing Parenthood Wishes: A Conjoint Analysis of Criteria to Prioritize Infertile Couples for Publicly Funded Fertility Treatment
Van Muylder A, Kessels R, D’Hooghe T, Luyten J. Weighing Parenthood Wishes: A Conjoint Analysis of Criteria to Prioritize Infertile Couples for Publicly Funded Fertility Treatment. Medical Decision Making 2025, 45: 1034-1051. PMID: 40826820, DOI: 10.1177/0272989x251353524.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchBiological childrenIn vitro fertilizationInfertility causeCost of IVF treatmentPublic fundsSame-sex relationshipsPartner ageCivil statusFertilizer treatmentsLife goalsFunding prioritiesPublic supportBelgian populationBelgian policyHard choicesIVF treatmentInfertile couplesPolicy makersFunding policiesPolicyLogit modelInfertilitySociodemographic groupsDiscrete-choice experimentFundingA commentary on “Online fertility workup with video consultation for infertility patients; a randomized controlled trial”
Zheng W, Schwarze J, D'Hooghe T. A commentary on “Online fertility workup with video consultation for infertility patients; a randomized controlled trial”. Fertility And Sterility 2025, 124: 456-457. PMID: 40614894, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.042.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConsidering minimal clinically important differences in assisted reproductive technology
Schwarze J, Broekmans F, Gupta S, Tennant P, Sunkara S, D'Hooghe T. Considering minimal clinically important differences in assisted reproductive technology. Fertility And Sterility 2025, 124: 1051-1060. PMID: 40578658, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.026.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMinimal Clinically Important DifferenceClinically Important DifferenceAssisted Reproductive TechnologyLive birthsMinimal clinically important difference thresholdAssisted reproductive technology proceduresImportant differenceReproductive technologyCumulative live birthEvidence of superiorityClinical pregnancyGroup of womenDiverse prognosisClinical significancePregnancy rateStatistical significancePregnancyBirthPublished literatureTreatmentRecommendation to improve the rigor and impact of nonrandomized studies of interventions in fertility treatment research
Schwarze J, Tennant P, Barnhart K, Platt R, Gupta S, Venetis C, D'Hooghe T, Schisterman E. Recommendation to improve the rigor and impact of nonrandomized studies of interventions in fertility treatment research. Fertility And Sterility 2025, 124: 749-758. PMID: 40467028, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.168.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchAssisted Reproductive TechnologyNonrandomized studies of interventionsRandomized Controlled TrialsNonrandomized studiesStudies of interventionsClinical practiceOvarian stimulationNon-randomized Studies of InterventionsMultidisciplinary expert consensusSelection biasAssisted reproductive technology researchReproductive technologyMethodological rigorStudy designEvidence-based clinical practiceEmbryo transferIntervention study designPatient populationTreatment outcomesDiverse patient populationsClinical decision makingGold standardControlled TrialsStudy protocolExpert consensusP-360 Should unregistered trials be excluded from systematic reviews? Exploring the association between trial registration and reporting inflated effect sizes among randomized controlled trials of infertility
Mol B, Feng Q, Li W, Crispin J, Longobardi S, D’Hooghe T, Li W. P-360 Should unregistered trials be excluded from systematic reviews? Exploring the association between trial registration and reporting inflated effect sizes among randomized controlled trials of infertility. Human Reproduction 2025, 40: deaf097.666. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaf097.666.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchRandomized Controlled TrialsTrial registration statusSystematic reviewEffect sizeTRIAL REGISTRATIONSecondary analysisLive birthsSecondary analyses of randomized controlled trialsUnregistered trialsSystematic searchAssessment of randomized controlled trialsVolume of trialsTrial publicationsPoisson regression modelsSystematic searches of EMBASERegistration statusStudy questionsSearch of EmbaseAnalysis of randomized controlled trialsBlanket exclusionEuropean UnionBirth outcomesAdjusted multivariate analysisLive birth outcomesAbstract Study questionP-625 A machine learning model outperformed fertility specialists in predicting the number of oocytes retrieved based on patient profile and predefined r-hFSH-α starting dose
Hourvitz R, Ettie M, Polyzos N, Zheng W, Lippolis E, D’Hooghe T, Baum M, Luz A, Reuvenny S, Yitzhak N, Hourvitz A. P-625 A machine learning model outperformed fertility specialists in predicting the number of oocytes retrieved based on patient profile and predefined r-hFSH-α starting dose. Human Reproduction 2025, 40: deaf097.931. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaf097.931.Peer-Reviewed Original Research