World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Blackford Middleton

Blackford Middleton

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Computer Science 55 4253 4135 2005 1935 183 14392

Blackford Middleton publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Blackford Middleton between 1986 and 2024, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Blackford Middleton published across 39 years, from 1986 to 2024, averaging 5.4 papers a year. Output peaked at 22 publications in 2007. 1 of the 209 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1986 to 2024. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 22. Peak 22 publications in 2007. 1986: 1 publication 1987: 0 publications 1988: 0 publications 1989: 0 publications 1990: 1 publication 1991: 4 publications 1992: 2 publications 1993: 2 publications 1994: 2 publications 1995: 1 publication 1996: 0 publications 1997: 1 publication 1998: 2 publications 1999: 0 publications 2000: 1 publication 2001: 3 publications 2002: 3 publications 2003: 9 publications 2004: 6 publications 2005: 10 publications 2006: 13 publications 2007: 22 publications 2008: 14 publications 2009: 11 publications 2010: 16 publications 2011: 12 publications 2012: 18 publications 2013: 14 publications 2014: 11 publications 2015: 2 publications 2016: 4 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 3 publications 2020: 4 publications 2021: 2 publications 2022: 2 publications 2023: 0 publications 2024: 1 publication
1986 2024

209 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Blackford Middleton: publications per year, 1986 to 2024
Year Publications
1986 1
1987 0
1988 0
1989 0
1990 1
1991 4
1992 2
1993 2
1994 2
1995 1
1996 0
1997 1
1998 2
1999 0
2000 1
2001 3
2002 3
2003 9
2004 6
2005 10
2006 13
2007 22
2008 14
2009 11
2010 16
2011 12
2012 18
2013 14
2014 11
2015 2
2016 4
2017 7
2018 5
2019 3
2020 4
2021 2
2022 2
2023 0
2024 1
Total 209
Download as CSV

Blackford Middleton publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Blackford Middleton sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 97 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 32–41 to 991+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 609. Most scientists, 609, have 142–151 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 182–191 publications, is where this scientist sits. 32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32–41 publications 991+

This scientist: 183 publications — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
32–41 7
42–51 22
52–61 82
62–71 134
72–81 249
82–91 324
92–101 421
102–111 420
112–121 497
122–131 544
132–141 555
142–151 609
152–161 559
162–171 534
172–181 556
182–191 583 183
192–201 519
202–211 508
212–221 490
222–231 437
232–241 423
242–251 408
252–261 377
262–271 301
272–281 335
282–291 320
292–301 293
302–311 250
312–321 238
322–331 206
332–341 209
342–351 208
352–361 162
362–371 176
372–381 127
382–391 158
392–401 128
402–411 104
412–421 94
422–431 99
432–441 83
442–451 108
452–461 73
462–471 77
472–481 69
482–491 84
492–501 62
502–511 54
512–521 57
522–531 51
532–541 51
542–551 32
552–561 38
562–571 28
572–581 43
582–591 33
592–601 41
602–611 32
612–621 28
622–631 25
632–641 27
642–651 17
652–661 20
662–671 17
672–681 15
682–691 14
692–701 21
702–711 13
712–721 12
722–731 19
732–741 14
742–751 12
752–761 10
762–771 10
772–781 11
782–791 10
792–801 11
802–811 8
812–821 8
822–831 7
832–841 11
842–851 10
852–861 5
862–871 9
872–881 4
882–891 6
892–901 3
902–911 6
912–921 3
922–931 2
932–941 2
942–951 2
952–961 3
962–971 3
972–981 3
982–990 5
991+ 100
Download as CSV

Blackford Middleton D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Blackford Middleton sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 52 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 131+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 990. Most scientists, 990, have 36–37 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 54–55 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30–31 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 55 D-Index — 71st percentile

71% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 879
32–33 983
34–35 918
36–37 990
38–39 968
40–41 907
42–43 821
44–45 763
46–47 689
48–49 543
50–51 543
52–53 518
54–55 500 55
56–57 458
58–59 400
60–61 337
62–63 308
64–65 292
66–67 249
68–69 213
70–71 192
72–73 189
74–75 165
76–77 139
78–79 119
80–81 121
82–83 113
84–85 88
86–87 87
88–89 75
90–91 69
92–93 57
94–95 46
96–97 38
98–99 34
100–101 36
102–103 27
104–105 37
106–107 18
108–109 31
110–111 19
112–113 16
114–115 12
116–117 20
118–119 15
120–121 5
122–123 20
124–125 8
126–127 5
128–129 7
130 3
131+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Blackford Middleton is affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields of study, primarily including Decision Sciences and Computer Science. Within these areas, Middleton explores subfields such as Information Systems and Management, Information Systems, Molecular Biology, Health Information Management, and Health Informatics.

Middleton's work covers several main topics, notably:

  • Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Research Data Management Practices
  • Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Data Quality and Management
  • Semantic Web and Ontologies

Their recent publications reflect a focus on computable biomedical knowledge and healthcare interoperability. Notable papers include:

  • "A method for structuring complex clinical knowledge and its representational formalisms to support composite knowledge interoperability in healthcare," 2022, Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • "Summary of second annual MCBK public meeting: Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge-A movement to accelerate translation of knowledge into action," 2020, Learning Health Systems
  • "A survey of computable biomedical knowledge repositories," 2022, Learning Health Systems
  • "Summary of fourth annual MCBK public meeting: Mobilizing computable biomedical knowledge-metadata and trust," 2021, Learning Health Systems
  • "Summary of third annual MCBK public meeting: Mobilizing computable biomedical knowledge-Accelerating the second knowledge revolution," 2020, Learning Health Systems

Middleton frequently collaborates with other researchers in the field. Their most frequent coauthors include:

  • Robert A. Greenes
  • Jodyn Platt
  • Rachel Richesson
  • Bruce E. Bray
  • Gerald Perry

Their research is primarily published in the following venues:

  • Learning Health Systems
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • Academic Medicine
  • Proceedings of The Nutrition Society

Best Publications

  • Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality

    David W. Bates;Gilad J. Kuperman;Gilad J. Kuperman;Samuel J. Wang;Tejal K. Gandhi

  • The value of health care information exchange and interoperability.

    Jan Walker;Eric Pan;Douglas Johnston;Julia Adler-Milstein

  • A Roadmap for National Action on Clinical Decision Support

    Jerome A. Osheroff;Jonathan M. Teich;Jonathan M. Teich;Blackford Middleton;Elaine B. Steen

  • Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA

    Blackford Middleton;Meryl Bloomrosen;Mark A Dente;Bill Hashmat

  • Grand challenges in clinical decision support

    Dean F. Sittig;Adam Wright;Jerome A. Osheroff;Blackford Middleton

  • A Research Agenda for Personal Health Records (PHRs)

    David C. Kaelber;Ashish K. Jha;Douglas Johnston;Douglas Johnston;Blackford Middleton

  • Probabilistic diagnosis using a reformulation of the INTERNIST-1/QMR knowledge base. I. The probabilistic model and inference algorithms.

    M A Shwe;B Middleton;D E Heckerman;M Henrion

  • Assessing the level of healthcare information technology adoption in the United States: a snapshot

    Eric G Poon;Eric G Poon;Eric G Poon;Ashish Kumar Jha;Ashish Kumar Jha;Melissa Christino;Melissa M Honour

  • Return on Investment for a Computerized Physician Order Entry System

    Rainu Kaushal;Ashish K. Jha;Calvin Franz;John P. Glaser

  • Interface design principles for usable decision support

    Jan Horsky;Gordon D. Schiff;Douglas Johnston;Lauren Mercincavage

  • Drug—drug interactions that should be non-interruptive in order to reduce alert fatigue in electronic health records

    Shobha Phansalkar;Shobha Phansalkar;Shobha Phansalkar;Heleen van der Sijs;Alisha D Tucker;Amrita A Desai

  • Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision

    B. Middleton;D. F. Sittig;A. Wright

  • Using qualitative studies to improve the usability of an EMR

    Alan F. Rose;Jeffrey L. Schnipper;Elyse R. Park;Eric G. Poon

  • Knowledge engineering for large belief networks

    Malcolm Pradhan;Gregory Provan;Blackford Middleton;Max Henrion

  • Clinical Decision Support Capabilities of Commercially-available Clinical Information Systems

    Adam Wright;Adam Wright;Adam Wright;Dean F. Sittig;Joan S. Ash;Sapna Sharma

  • A consensus action agenda for achieving the national health information infrastructure.

    William A. Yasnoff;Betsy L. Humphreys;J. Marc Overhage;Don E. Detmer

  • Accelerating U.S. EHR adoption: How to get there from here. Recommendations based on the 2004 ACMI retreat

    Blackford Middleton;W. Ed Hammond;Patricia F. Brennan;Gregory F. Cooper

  • High-priority drug-drug interactions for use in electronic health records.

    Shobha Phansalkar;Shobha Phansalkar;Shobha Phansalkar;Amrita A. Desai;Douglas S. Bell;Douglas S. Bell;Eileeen Yoshida

  • Clinical decision support models and frameworks: Seeking to address research issues underlying implementation successes and failures.

    Robert A. Greenes;Robert A. Greenes;David W. Bates;Kensaku Kawamoto;Blackford Middleton

  • Development and evaluation of a comprehensive clinical decision support taxonomy: comparison of front-end tools in commercial and internally developed electronic health record systems

    Adam Wright;Adam Wright;Dean F. Sittig;Joan S. Ash;Joshua Feblowitz;Joshua Feblowitz

  • MarketW atch The Value Of Health Care Information Exchange And Interoperability

    Jan Walker;Eric Pan;Douglas Johnston;Julia Adler-Milstein

  • Practice-Linked Online Personal Health Records for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

    Richard W. Grant;Jonathan S. Wald;Jeffrey L. Schnipper;Tejal K. Gandhi

Frequent Co-Authors

Adam Wright
Adam Wright Vanderbilt University Medical Center
David W. Bates
David W. Bates Brigham and Women's Hospital
Dean F. Sittig
Dean F. Sittig The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Tejal K. Gandhi
Tejal K. Gandhi Press Ganey
Julia Adler-Milstein
Julia Adler-Milstein University of California, San Francisco
Rainu Kaushal
Rainu Kaushal Cornell University
David Heckerman
David Heckerman Microsoft (United States)
Eric Horvitz
Eric Horvitz Microsoft (United States)
Ashish K. Jha
Ashish K. Jha Brown University
Robert A. Greenes
Robert A. Greenes Arizona State 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 associate's degree online options can be a smart starting point for those interested in Computer Science. These flexible programs often offer foundational knowledge and hands-on skills, making them ideal for learners who want to balance studies with work or other commitments.

For students concerned about finances, many cheap online colleges offer accredited Computer Science degrees at lower tuition rates. These institutions help make quality education more accessible, ensuring you don't have to compromise on your career goals because of cost.

Admissions policies vary, and some online schools that accept low gpa provide opportunities for learners with diverse academic backgrounds. This inclusiveness allows more students to qualify for Computer Science programs, no matter their past performance.

While Computer Science leads to tech careers, combining it with fields like environmental science creates specialized opportunities. If you're curious about broader possibilities, explore the range of jobs for environmental science majors to see how tech and science intersect in the job market.

Best Scientists Citing Blackford Middleton

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles