World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
34
Citations
4365
World Ranking
12253
National Ranking
4965

Charlene R. Weir 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 Charlene R. Weir sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 991+

This scientist: 192 publications — 43rd percentile

43% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Charlene R. Weir 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 Charlene R. Weir sits on this spectrum.

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 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 34 D-Index — 16th percentile

16% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Charlene R. Weir is affiliated with the University of Utah in the United States. Their research broadly covers the fields of Medicine and Health Professions, with a notable focus on several subfields including General Health Professions, Health Information Management, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Artificial Intelligence, and Epidemiology.

Their extensive publication record spans a range of research topics. Key topics include Electronic Health Records Systems, Mobile Health and mHealth Applications, Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills, Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare, Emergency and Acute Care Studies, Machine Learning in Healthcare, and Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring.

Among recent research papers attributed to or associated with their collaborative network are:

  • Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: a scoping review, 2020, published in JAMIA Open
  • Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Improve Chronic Disease Care: Methods and Application to Pharmacotherapy Decision Support for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, 2021, Methods of Information in Medicine
  • Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support Platform to Manage Patients Who Meet Guideline-Based Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Familial Cancer, 2020, JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
  • Feasibility and acceptability of a game-based symptom-reporting app for children with cancer: perspectives of children and parents, 2020, Supportive Care in Cancer
  • Establishing a multidisciplinary initiative for interoperable electronic health record innovations at an academic medical center, 2021, JAMIA Open

Charlene R. Weir has frequently collaborated with a number of coauthors, including:

  • Guilherme Del Fiol
  • Kensaku Kawamoto
  • Teresa Taft
  • Heidi Kramer
  • Thomas S. Reese

Their work has appeared predominantly in the following publication venues:

  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
  • JAMIA Open
  • UNC Libraries
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Best Publications

  • High Rates of Adverse Drug Events in a Highly Computerized Hospital

    Jonathan R. Nebeker;Jennifer M. Hoffman;Charlene R. Weir;Charles L. Bennett

  • Report of the AMIA EHR-2020 Task Force on the status and future direction of EHRs.

    Thomas H. Payne;Sarah Corley;Theresa A. Cullen;Tejal K. Gandhi

  • Text summarization in the biomedical domain

    Rashmi Mishra;Jiantao Bian;Marcelo Fiszman;Charlene R. Weir

  • Direct Text Entry in Electronic Progress Notes

    C.R. Weir;J.F. Hurdle;M.A. Felgar;J.M. Hoffman

  • Direct Text Entry in Electronic Progress Notes An Evaluation of Input Errors

    Charlene R. Weir;J. F. Hurdle;M. A. Felgar;J. M. Hoffman

  • A Cognitive Task Analysis of Information Management Strategies in a Computerized Provider Order Entry Environment

    Charlene R. Weir;Jonathan J. R. Nebeker;Jonathan J. R. Nebeker;Bret L. Hicken;Rebecca Campo

  • The role of problem definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving everyday problems.

    Cynthia A. Berg;JoNell Strough;Katerina S. Calderone;Carol Sansone

  • Automated extraction of ejection fraction for quality measurement using regular expressions in Unstructured Information Management Architecture (UIMA) for heart failure.

    Jennifer H. Garvin;Scott L. DuVall;Brett R. South;Bruce E. Bray

  • Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators

    Peter J. Embi;Charlene Raye Weir;Charlene Raye Weir;Efthimis N. Efthimiadis;Stephen M. Thielke;Stephen M. Thielke

  • Intensive care unit nurses' information needs and recommendations for integrated displays to improve nurses' situation awareness

    Sven H. Koch;Sven H. Koch;Charlene Raye Weir;Maral Haar;Nancy Staggers;Nancy Staggers

  • Evaluation of the effect of information integration in displays for ICU nurses on situation awareness and task completion time: A prospective randomized controlled study ☆

    Sven H. Koch;Sven H. Koch;Charlene Raye Weir;Dwayne R Westenskow;Matthias Gondan

  • An exploration of the impact of computerized patient documentation on clinical collaboration.

    Charlene R. Weir;Charlene R. Weir;Kenric W. Hammond;Peter J. Embi;Efthimis N. Efthimiadis

  • Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Improve Chronic Disease Care: Methods and Application to Pharmacotherapy Decision Support for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus

    Shinji Tarumi;Wataru Takeuchi;George Chalkidis;Salvador Rodriguez-Loya

  • A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients.

    Man Hung;Daniel O Clegg;Tom H Greene;Charlene Raye Weir

  • Information needs of physicians, care coordinators, and families to support care coordination of children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN).

    Pallavi Ranade-Kharkar;Pallavi Ranade-Kharkar;Charlene R. Weir;Charlene R. Weir;Chuck Norlin;Sarah A. Collins

  • Usability of telehealth technologies

    Zia Agha;Charlene R. Weir;Yunan Chen

  • Automatically extracting sentences from Medline citations to support clinicians' information needs.

    Siddhartha Reddy Jonnalagadda;Guilherme Del Fiol;Richard Medlin;Charlene Raye Weir;Charlene Raye Weir

  • Developing a Taxonomy for Research in Adverse Drug Events: Potholes and Signposts

    Jonathan R. Nebeker;John F. Hurdle;Jennifer M. Hoffman;Beverly Roth

  • Understanding complex clinical reasoning in infectious diseases for improving clinical decision support design

    Roosan Islam;Charlene R. Weir;Makoto L. Jones;Guilherme Del Fiol

  • The state of the evidence for computerized provider order entry: a systematic review and analysis of the quality of the literature.

    Charlene Raye Weir;Charlene Raye Weir;Nancy Staggers;Shobha Phansalkar;Shobha Phansalkar

  • Establishing a multidisciplinary initiative for interoperable electronic health record innovations at an academic medical center.

    Kensaku Kawamoto;Polina V Kukhareva;Charlene Weir;Michael C Flynn

  • Taking an Antibiotic Time-out: Utilization and Usability of a Self-Stewardship Time-out Program for Renewal of Vancomycin and Piperacillin-Tazobactam.

    Christopher J. Graber;Makoto M. Jones;Peter A. Glassman;Charlene Raye Weir

  • The pharmacist and the EHR.

    Scott D. Nelson;John Poikonen;Thomas J. Reese;David El Halta

Frequent Co-Authors

Matthew H. Samore
Matthew H. Samore University of Utah
Nancy Staggers
Nancy Staggers University of Utah
Matthew Bidwell Goetz
Matthew Bidwell Goetz University of California, Los Angeles
David W. Wetter
David W. Wetter University of Utah
Tom Greene
Tom Greene University of Utah
William M. Tierney
William M. Tierney The University of Texas at Austin
Carol Sansone
Carol Sansone University of Utah
Lin Liu
Lin Liu Chinese Academy of Sciences
Andrew Georgiou
Andrew Georgiou Macquarie University
Maria E. Fernandez
Maria E. Fernandez The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

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 online degree options opens up flexible pathways for students interested in Computer Science. For those seeking rapid advancement, the quickest online masters degree programs can lead to a graduate credential in a shorter time, accelerating career growth without compromising quality.

Selection of the right degree is crucial. If you’re wondering which master's degree is most in demand in usa, Computer Science consistently ranks highly thanks to widespread tech sector growth and evolving roles in data analytics, cybersecurity, and software engineering.

Alternatively, an online associate degree offers an affordable and accessible entry point. These programs let students gain core computer science skills and start working sooner, with the option to transfer credits toward a bachelor’s degree later.

Cost is a major concern for many learners. Fortunately, the cheapest online college options provide recognized programs at significantly lower tuition rates, making a quality education more attainable.

Best Scientists Citing Charlene R. Weir

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles