World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Barbara J. McNeil

Barbara J. McNeil

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
100
Citations
71673
World Ranking
8101
National Ranking
4201

Barbara J. McNeil 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 Barbara J. McNeil 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: 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 302 publications — 17th percentile

17% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Barbara J. McNeil 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 Barbara J. McNeil 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: 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 100 D-Index — 60th percentile

60% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Barbara J. McNeil is affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of medicine, with specific focus on subfields such as radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, oncology, immunology, and surgery.

The main topics of their scientific work address a range of biomedical and clinical issues, including:

  • Radiopharmaceutical chemistry and applications
  • Lung cancer treatments and mutations
  • Lung cancer research studies
  • Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
  • Pancreatitis pathology and treatment
  • Apelin-related biomedical research

Barbara J. McNeil has contributed to peer-reviewed academic literature, with recent papers published in notable journals such as:

  • "Radiotheranostics: a roadmap for future development," 2020, The Lancet Oncology
  • "Plasma Endocan Levels Are Associated With Organ Dysfunction, Fluid Accumulation and Poor Outcome in Sepsis Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure," 2025, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Collaborations have involved several frequently coauthoring researchers, including:

  • Ken Herrmann
  • Markus Schwaiger
  • Jason S. Lewis
  • Stephen B. Solomon
  • Michaël Baumann

The primary venues for publication reflect the focus areas of the scientist's work, notably:

  • The Lancet Oncology
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Best Publications

  • The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

    James A. Hanley;Barbara J. McNeil

  • A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

    J A Hanley;B J McNeil

  • On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies

    Barbara J. McNeil;Stephen G. Pauker;Harold C. Sox;Amos Tversky

  • Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care.

    P D Cleary;B J McNeil

  • Does More Intensive Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Elderly Reduce Mortality? Analysis Using Instrumental Variables

    M. Mcclellan;B. J. Mcneil;J. P. Newhouse

  • Primer on Certain Elements of Medical Decision Making

    B J McNeil;E Keller;S J Adelstein

  • Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: A matched analysis using propensity scores

    Sharon-Lise T. Normand;Mary Beth Landrum;Edward Guadagnoli;John Z. Ayanian;John Z. Ayanian

  • Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach.

    Peter Doubilet;Colin B. Begg;Milton C. Weinstein;Peter Braun

  • Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer.

    Barbara J. McNeil;Ralph Weichselbaum;Stephen G. Pauker

  • CT and MR imaging in staging non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: report of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group.

    W R Webb;C Gatsonis;E A Zerhouni;R T Heelan

  • Statistical Approaches to the Analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves

    Barbara J. McNeil;James A. Hanley

  • The importance of co-existent disease in the occurrence of postoperative complications and one-year recovery in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Comorbidity and outcomes after hip replacement.

    Sheldon Greenfield;Giovanni Apolone;Barbara J. McNeil;Paul D. Cleary

  • Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial.

    Matthew D. Rifkin;Elias A. Zerhouni;Constantine A. Gatsonis;Leslie E. Quint

  • Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer

    Barbara J. McNeil;Ralph Weichselbaum;Stephen G. Pauker

  • Use and Misuse of the Term “Cost Effective” in Medicine

    Peter Doubilet;Milton C. Weinstein;Barbara J. McNeil

  • Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases.

    Hugh D. Curtin;Hemant Ishwaran;Anthony A. Mancuso;Robert W. Dalley

  • Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a multicenter trial

    Claire Bombardier;James Ware;I.Jon Russell;Martin Larson

  • Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction

    John Z. Ayanian;Paul J. Hauptman;Edward Guadagnoli;Elliott M Antman

  • Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities--report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group.

    Clare M. C. Tempany;Kelly H. Zou;Stuart G. Silverman;Douglas L. Brown

  • Use of Cardiac Procedures and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction in the United States and Canada

    J V Tu;C L Pashos;C D Naylor;E Chen

Frequent Co-Authors

Sharon-Lise T. Normand
Sharon-Lise T. Normand Harvard University
Nancy L. Keating
Nancy L. Keating Harvard University
Arnold M. Epstein
Arnold M. Epstein Harvard University
Constantine Gatsonis
Constantine Gatsonis Brown University
Bruce E. Landon
Bruce E. Landon Harvard University
Stephen G. Pauker
Stephen G. Pauker Tufts Medical Center
John Z. Ayanian
John Z. Ayanian University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Paul D. Cleary
Paul D. Cleary Yale University
Joseph P. Newhouse
Joseph P. Newhouse Harvard University
Clare M. Tempany
Clare M. Tempany Brigham and Women's Hospital

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

Pursuing a medical education in the USA opens doors to a wide range of online degrees, each supporting diverse healthcare career pathways. Beyond the traditional MD, students and professionals may consider programs in healthcare administration, pharmacy, nursing, and health information management to broaden their expertise and job prospects.

For those interested in management, exploring the cheapest mha programs online can provide a cost-effective route to leadership roles in hospitals and clinics. If advancing clinical practice is your goal, the best dnp programs online offer rigorous doctoral-level training for aspiring nurse leaders.

Pharmacies remain a cornerstone of healthcare, and gaining credentials through the cheapest online pharmacy school can open specialized career opportunities in the pharmaceutical field. Additionally, with healthcare technology on the rise, earning a him degree online equips graduates with essential skills for managing patient data and medical records in digital environments.

These flexible online programs make it easier for students to balance their studies with existing commitments while preparing for rewarding roles in the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape.

Best Scientists Citing Barbara J. McNeil

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles