World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Amylou C. Dueck

Amylou C. Dueck

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
81
Citations
29037
World Ranking
16482
National Ranking
8283

Amylou C. Dueck 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 Amylou C. Dueck sits on this spectrum.

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: 611 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 602 publications — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Amylou C. Dueck 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 Amylou C. Dueck sits on this spectrum.

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: 400 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 81 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Amylou C. Dueck is affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in the United States and has a research focus that spans the field of Medicine with a specialization in Oncology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Economics and Econometrics, Genetics, and Hematology. Their publications cover topics in cancer survivorship and care, health systems and economic evaluations, myeloproliferative neoplasms, economic impacts of cancer, advanced breast cancer therapies, acute myeloid leukemia research, and cancer treatment pharmacology.

The scientist's frequent publication venues include:

  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Blood
  • UNC Libraries
  • Quality of Life Research
  • Clinical Trials

Notable recent papers by Amylou C. Dueck are:

  • Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer, 2023, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer, 2022, JAMA
  • International Standards for the Analysis of Quality-of-Life and Patient-Reported Outcome Endpoints in Cancer Randomised Controlled Trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium, 2020, The Lancet Oncology
  • Palbociclib With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Early Breast Cancer (PALLAS): Interim Analysis of a Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 3 Study, 2021, The Lancet Oncology
  • Composite Grading Algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), 2020, Clinical Trials

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Amylou C. Dueck include:

  • Ethan Basch
  • Gita Thanarajasingam
  • Gina L. Mazza
  • Brenda Ginos
  • Ruben A. Mesa

The main fields of study reflect a broad engagement with clinical and economic aspects of cancer research and patient outcomes. Their work in cancer survivorship and care features strongly, complementing contributions to understanding quality-of-life metrics and patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials.

Best Publications

  • Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

    Ethan Basch;Allison M. Deal;Mark G. Kris;Howard I. Scher

  • Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment

    Ethan Martin Basch;Allison M. Deal;Amylou C. Dueck;Howard I. Scher

  • 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

  • Longitudinal Modeling of Age-Related Memory Decline and the APOE ε4 Effect

    Richard J. Caselli;Amylou C. Dueck;David Osborne;Marwan N. Sabbagh

  • Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score: Prospective International Assessment of an Abbreviated Symptom Burden Scoring System Among Patients With MPNs

    Robyn M. Emanuel;Amylou C. Dueck;Holly L. Geyer;Jean Jacques Kiladjian

  • Two-Year Survival Comparing Web-Based Symptom Monitoring vs Routine Surveillance Following Treatment for Lung Cancer.

    Fabrice Denis;Ethan Basch;Anne Lise Septans;Jaafar Bennouna

  • Adjuvant Lapatinib and Trastuzumab for Early Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization Trial

    Martine Piccart-Gebhart;Eileen Holmes;Jośe Baselga;Evandro De Azambuja

  • Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Adult Cancer Treatment Trials

    Bryce B. Reeve;Sandra A. Mitchell;Amylou C. Dueck;Ethan Basch

  • The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF): international prospective validation and reliability trial in 402 patients

    Robyn Scherber;Amylou C. Dueck;Peter Johansson;Tiziano Barbui

  • Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors.

    Mrinal M. Gounder;Michelle R. Mahoney;Brian A. Van Tine;Vinod Ravi

  • A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment

    Carolyn Miller Reilly;Deborah Watkins Bruner;Sandra A. Mitchell;Lori M. Minasian

  • International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

    Corneel Coens;Madeline Pe;Amylou C. Dueck;Jeff Sloan

  • Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival

    Leland S. Hu;Jennifer M. Eschbacher;Joseph E. Heiserman;Amylou C. Dueck

  • HER2 and Chromosome 17 Effect on Patient Outcome in the N9831 Adjuvant Trastuzumab Trial

    Edith A. Perez;Monica M. Reinholz;David W. Hillman;Kathleen S. Tenner

  • Nurse leader mindfulness meditation program for stress management: a randomized controlled trial.

    Teri Britt Pipe;Jennifer J. Bortz;Amylou Dueck;Debra Pendergast

  • Radiotherapy and Adjuvant Trastuzumab in Operable Breast Cancer: Tolerability and Adverse Event Data From the NCCTG Phase III Trial N9831

    Michele Y. Halyard;Thomas M. Pisansky;Amylou C. Dueck;Vera Suman

  • Radiogenomics to characterize regional genetic heterogeneity in glioblastoma

    Leland S. Hu;Leland S. Hu;Shuluo Ning;Jennifer M. Eschbacher;Leslie C. Baxter

  • A placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of infliximab for cancer-associated weight loss in elderly and/or poor performance non-small cell lung cancer patients (N01C9).

    Aminah Jatoi;Howard L. Ritter;Amylou Dueck;Phuong L. Nguyen

  • Genomic Analysis Reveals That Immune Function Genes Are Strongly Linked to Clinical Outcome in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 Adjuvant Trastuzumab Trial

    Edith A. Perez;E. Aubrey Thompson;Karla V. Ballman;S. Keith Anderson

Frequent Co-Authors

Ruben A. Mesa
Ruben A. Mesa The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Ethan Basch
Ethan Basch University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Jeff A. Sloan
Jeff A. Sloan Mayo Clinic
Claire N. Harrison
Claire N. Harrison Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Alessandro Rambaldi
Alessandro Rambaldi University of Milan
Alessandro M. Vannucchi
Alessandro M. Vannucchi University of Florence
Edith A. Perez
Edith A. Perez Mayo Clinic
Francesco Passamonti
Francesco Passamonti University of Milan

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

If you’re planning to study Medicine in the USA, it’s helpful to explore related online degrees and alternative career pathways in healthcare. These options often offer greater flexibility and can open doors to rewarding roles beyond becoming a physician.

For those interested in healthcare administration, there are a variety of healthcare administration programs available online. These programs are ideal for students looking to move quickly into administrative and leadership positions in medical settings.

Nursing remains a highly popular career track. Entry into the field is accessible via routes like the lpn program without teas test, which allows students to skip lengthy entrance exams. Ambitious nurses can further advance through rn to np bridge program options, enabling registered nurses to attain a nurse practitioner qualification more directly.

If you are seeking a non-clinical path, consider careers in medical records and billing. There are excellent medical billing and coding schools that accept financial aid, so you can gain credentials affordably and start working in vital administrative healthcare roles.

Best Scientists Citing Amylou C. Dueck

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles