World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
109
Citations
45887
World Ranking
5761
National Ranking
3096

Andrew J. Carroll 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 Andrew J. Carroll 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: 472 publications — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Andrew J. Carroll 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 Andrew J. Carroll 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: 109 D-Index — 72nd percentile

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

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

Overview

Andrew J. Carroll is affiliated with the University of Alabama at Birmingham in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on the fields of Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, with significant contributions in related subfields such as Hematology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Molecular Biology, Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, and Genetics.

They have been involved in investigating key topics related to leukemia and cancer, including:

  • Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
  • Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research
  • Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment

Andrew J. Carroll has contributed to various high-impact publication venues characterized by the frequency of their publications, including:

  • Blood
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Leukemia
  • Blood Advances
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Recent notable papers authored or coauthored by Andrew J. Carroll cover critical advances in leukemia research. Key recent publications are:

  • The genomic landscape of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 2022, Nature Genetics
  • Children's Oncology Group AALL0434: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Nelarabine in Newly Diagnosed T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Blinatumomab in Standard-Risk B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children, 2024, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Mutational landscape and clinical outcome of patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia and rearrangements involving 11q23/ KMT2A, 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Additional gene mutations may refine the 2017 European LeukemiaNet classification in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia aged <60 years, 2020, Leukemia

Collaboration is an important component of their research, with frequent coauthors including Mignon L. Loh, Meenakshi Devidas, Nyla A. Heerema, Elizabeth A. Raetz, and Stephen P. Hunger.

Best Publications

  • Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461)

    John C. Byrd;Krzysztof Mrózek;Richard K. Dodge;Andrew J. Carroll

  • Targetable Kinase-Activating Lesions in Ph-like Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

    K. G. Roberts;Y. Li;D. Payne-Turner;R. C. Harvey

  • Uniform approach to risk classification and treatment assignment for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

    M Smith;D Arthur;B Camitta;A J Carroll

  • The genomic landscape of pediatric and young adult T-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia

    Yu Liu;John Easton;Ying Shao;Jamie Maciaszek

  • Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and its relationship to other prognostic factors: a Children's Oncology Group study.

    Michael J. Borowitz;Meenakshi Devidas;Stephen P. Hunger;W. Paul Bowman;W. Paul Bowman

  • IDH1 and IDH2 Gene Mutations Identify Novel Molecular Subsets Within De Novo Cytogenetically Normal Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

    Guido Marcucci;Kati Maharry;Yue-Zhong Wu;Michael D. Radmacher

  • Absence of the Wild-Type Allele Predicts Poor Prognosis in Adult de Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Normal Cytogenetics and the Internal Tandem Duplication of FLT3 A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

    Susan P. Whitman;Kellie J. Archer;Lan Feng;Claudia Baldus

  • Frequency of Prolonged Remission Duration after High-Dose Cytarabine Intensification in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Varies by Cytogenetic Subtype

    Clara D. Bloomfield;David Lawrence;John C. Byrd;Andrew Carroll

  • Adverse Prognostic Significance of KIT Mutations in Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia With inv(16) and t(8;21): A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

    Peter Paschka;Guido Marcucci;Amy S. Ruppert;Krzysztof Mrózek

  • Improved Early Event-Free Survival With Imatinib in Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Children's Oncology Group Study

    Kirk R. Schultz;W. Paul Bowman;Alexander Aledo;William B. Slayton

  • The genomic landscape of hypodiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia

    Linda Holmfeldt;Lei Wei;Ernesto Diaz-Flores;Michael Walsh

  • Rearrangement of CRLF2 is associated with mutation of JAK kinases, alteration of IKZF1, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and a poor outcome in pediatric B-progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia

    Richard C. Harvey;Richard C. Harvey;Charles G. Mullighan;I-Ming Chen;I-Ming Chen;Walker Wharton

  • Risk- and response-based classification of childhood B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a combined analysis of prognostic markers from the Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) and Children's Cancer Group (CCG)

    Kirk R. Schultz;D. Jeanette Pullen;Harland N. Sather;Jonathan J. Shuster

  • Identification of novel cluster groups in pediatric high-risk B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia with gene expression profiling: correlation with genome-wide DNA copy number alterations, clinical characteristics, and outcome.

    Richard C. Harvey;Richard C. Harvey;Charles G. Mullighan;Xuefei Wang;Kevin K. Dobbin

  • MicroRNA expression in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia

    Guido Marcucci;Michael D. Radmacher;Michael D. Radmacher;Kati Maharry;Kati Maharry;Krzysztof Mrózek

  • Prognostic Significance of the European LeukemiaNet Standardized System for Reporting Cytogenetic and Molecular Alterations in Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

    Krzysztof Mrózek;Guido Marcucci;Deedra Nicolet;Kati S. Maharry

  • Long-term follow-up of imatinib in pediatric Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Children's Oncology Group study AALL0031.

    K. R. Schultz;A. Carroll;N. A. Heerema;W. P. Bowman

  • Favorable Prognostic Impact of NPM1 Mutations in Older Patients With Cytogenetically Normal De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Associated Gene- and MicroRNA-Expression Signatures: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

    Heiko Becker;Guido Marcucci;Kati Maharry;Michael D. Radmacher

  • Prognostic Factors and Outcome of Core Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients With t(8;21) Differ From Those of Patients With inv(16): A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

    Guido Marcucci;Krzysztof Mrózek;Amy S. Ruppert;Kati Maharry

  • Chromosomal abnormalities in 478 children with acute myeloid leukemia: clinical characteristics and treatment outcome in a cooperative pediatric oncology group study-POG 8821.

    S C Raimondi;M N Chang;Y Ravindranath;F G Behm

Frequent Co-Authors

Clara D. Bloomfield
Clara D. Bloomfield The Ohio State University
Stephen P. Hunger
Stephen P. Hunger University of Pennsylvania
Nyla A. Heerema
Nyla A. Heerema The Ohio State University
Krzysztof Mrózek
Krzysztof Mrózek The Ohio State University
Meenakshi Devidas
Meenakshi Devidas St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Jonathan E. Kolitz
Jonathan E. Kolitz Hofstra University
William L. Carroll
William L. Carroll New York University
Bayard L. Powell
Bayard L. Powell Wake Forest University
Mignon L. Loh
Mignon L. Loh University of California, San Francisco
Michael J. Borowitz
Michael J. Borowitz Johns Hopkins 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

If you’re considering studying Medicine in the USA, there are various related online options and career pathways worth exploring. For those already holding an RN license, cheap rn to bsn online programs can be a flexible and affordable way to advance your nursing career without leaving your job.

Non-nurses or those with degrees in other fields may be interested in direct entry online msn programs, which offer an accelerated route into nursing and advanced practice roles. Admission to nursing schools varies, and applicants looking for accessible options should consider nursing programs with high acceptance rates.

Not all healthcare jobs require a clinical background; fields such as medical billing and coding offer rewarding and stable careers. You can find flexible training through medical billing and coding schools online with financial aid.

Exploring these alternative degrees and certifications can open doors in healthcare while providing multiple routes to enter this in-demand industry.

Best Scientists Citing Andrew J. Carroll

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles