World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Amy P. Abernethy

Amy P. Abernethy

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 103 7337 6894 3840 3554 718 40707

Amy P. Abernethy publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Amy P. Abernethy between 1999 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Amy P. Abernethy published across 27 years, from 1999 to 2025, averaging 27.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 80 publications in 2012. 9 of the 744 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
20 40 60 80
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1999 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 80. Peak 80 publications in 2012. 1999: 1 publication 2000: 0 publications 2001: 2 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 3 publications 2004: 4 publications 2005: 10 publications 2006: 16 publications 2007: 34 publications 2008: 40 publications 2009: 42 publications 2010: 56 publications 2011: 73 publications 2012: 80 publications 2013: 80 publications 2014: 79 publications 2015: 68 publications 2016: 53 publications 2017: 33 publications 2018: 33 publications 2019: 20 publications 2020: 0 publications 2021: 0 publications 2022: 4 publications 2023: 3 publications 2024: 7 publications 2025: 2 publications
1999 2025

744 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Amy P. Abernethy: publications per year, 1999 to 2025
Year Publications
1999 1
2000 0
2001 2
2002 1
2003 3
2004 4
2005 10
2006 16
2007 34
2008 40
2009 42
2010 56
2011 73
2012 80
2013 80
2014 79
2015 68
2016 53
2017 33
2018 33
2019 20
2020 0
2021 0
2022 4
2023 3
2024 7
2025 2
Total 744
Download as CSV

Amy P. Abernethy publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Amy P. Abernethy sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 701–720 publications, is where this scientist sits. 101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 610 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 718 publications — 82nd percentile

82% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307 718
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Amy P. Abernethy D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Amy P. Abernethy sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 102–103 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 399 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 103 D-Index — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630 103
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Amy P. Abernethy is affiliated with Duke University in the United States and specializes in Medicine with a focus on a range of subfields and research topics. Their work encompasses significant contributions across Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, General Health Professions, Oncology, and Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.

Their main topics of research include Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, and Quality of Life; Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues; Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer; Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life; Ethics in Clinical Research; Cancer Survivorship and Care; and Healthcare Cost, Quality, and Practices.

Abernethy's frequent coauthors demonstrate a collaborative profile and include Joseph B. Franklin, Bryce B. Reeve, Ethan Basch, Arif H. Kamal, and Jane L. Wheeler.

Publications by Amy P. Abernethy show contributions to notable journals and venues. Frequent publication venues for their work include UNC Libraries, NAM Perspectives, JAMA, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, and The Lancet Digital Health.

Key recent papers authored or coauthored by the scientist include:

  • The Promise of Digital Health: Then, Now, and the Future, 2022, NAM Perspectives
  • Digital Health COVID-19 Impact Assessment: Lessons Learned and Compelling Needs, 2022, NAM Perspectives
  • The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine, 2024, JAMA
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Clinical Research: A Path Toward Precision Health for Everyone, 2022, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
  • Safety and Benefit of Discontinuing Statin Therapy in the Setting of Advanced, Life-Limiting Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial, 2020, UNC Libraries

Best Publications

  • American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion: The Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care

    Thomas J. Smith;Sarah Temin;Erin R. Alesi;Amy P. Abernethy

  • Generalist plus Specialist Palliative Care — Creating a More Sustainable Model

    Timothy E. Quill;Amy P. Abernethy

  • Mobile health technology evaluation: The mHealth evidence workshop

    Santosh Kumar;Wendy J. Nilsen;Amy Abernethy;Audie Atienza

  • The Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment: A Pilot Study Assessing Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the Insured Cancer Patient's Experience

    S. Yousuf Zafar;Jeffrey M. Peppercorn;Deborah Schrag;Donald H. Taylor

  • Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

    Ethan Basch;Ethan Basch;Bryce B. Reeve;Sandra A. Mitchell;Steven B. Clauser

  • Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

    Amylou C. Dueck;Tito R. Mendoza;Sandra A. Mitchell;Bryce B. Reeve

  • Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support.

    BA Katherine H. Abbott;Joni G. Sago;Catherine M. Breen;Amy P. Abernethy

  • Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial of sustained release morphine for the management of refractory dyspnoea

    Amy P Abernethy;David C Currow;Peter Frith;Belinda S Fazekas

  • Anamorelin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and cachexia (ROMANA 1 and ROMANA 2): results from two randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trials

    Jennifer S Temel;Amy P Abernethy;David C Currow;John Friend

  • Effect of palliative oxygen versus room air in relief of breathlessness in patients with refractory dyspnoea: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

    Amy P Abernethy;Amy P Abernethy;Amy P Abernethy;Christine F McDonald;Peter A Frith;Katherine Clark

  • The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]

    Amy P Abernethy;Amy P Abernethy;Amy P Abernethy;Tania Shelby-James;Belinda S Fazekas;David Woods

  • Safety and benefit of discontinuing statin therapy in the setting of advanced, life-limiting illness a randomized clinical trial

    Jean S. Kutner;Patrick J. Blatchford;Donald H. Taylor;Christine S. Ritchie;Christine S. Ritchie

  • Recommendations for Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research in Adult Oncology

    Ethan Basch;Amy P. Abernethy;C. Daniel Mullins;Bryce B. Reeve

  • Oncologist Communication About Emotion During Visits With Patients With Advanced Cancer

    Kathryn I. Pollak;Robert M. Arnold;Amy S. Jeffreys;Stewart C. Alexander

  • Financial toxicity, Part I: a new name for a growing problem.

    Zafar Sy;Abernethy Ap

  • Association of Patient Characteristics and Tumor Genomics With Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using a Clinicogenomic Database

    Gaurav Singal;Gaurav Singal;Peter G. Miller;Vineeta Agarwala;Gerald Li

  • Conflict associated with decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units

    Catherine M. Breen;Amy P. Abernethy;Katherine H. Abbott;James A. Tulsky

  • Patient experiences with communication about sex during and after treatment for cancer.

    Kathryn E. Flynn;Jennifer Barsky Reese;Diana D. Jeffery;Amy P. Abernethy

  • Unmet spiritual care needs impact emotional and spiritual well-being in advanced cancer patients

    Michelle J. Pearce;April D. Coan;James E. Herndon;Harold G. Koenig;Harold G. Koenig

  • PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING AND TREATING DISEASE-RELATED PAIN

    Francis J. Keefe;Amy P. Abernethy;Lisa C. Campbell

Frequent Co-Authors

David C. Currow
David C. Currow Flinders University
Gregory P. Samsa
Gregory P. Samsa Duke University
James A. Tulsky
James A. Tulsky Harvard University
James E. Herndon
James E. Herndon Duke University
Deborah Schrag
Deborah Schrag Harvard University
David Cella
David Cella Northwestern University
Ethan Basch
Ethan Basch University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Bryce B. Reeve
Bryce B. Reeve Duke University
Jennifer S. Temel
Jennifer S. Temel Harvard University
Francis J. Keefe
Francis J. Keefe Duke University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring medicine in the USA opens doors to various health-related fields and online learning options. Many students choose alternative career paths that offer flexibility, affordability, and growing job prospects.

For those interested in pharmaceuticals, the 3 year online pharmd program enables you to become a Doctor of Pharmacy remotely and in an accelerated timeframe.

If technology and information management are your strengths, consider a health information technology online degree, which prepares graduates for roles handling medical data and health records in digital environments.

The administrative side of healthcare is also accessible, with options like a low cost medical coding and billing online program that trains students for in-demand support roles from home.

Nursing remains a popular choice, and the cheapest fnp programs help registered nurses expand their qualifications and become family nurse practitioners at a lower cost.

Exploring these related online degrees can provide flexible career pathways for those passionate about health but looking for options beyond traditional medical school routes.

Best Scientists Citing Amy P. Abernethy

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles