World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 97 9159 8600 4724 4371 335 41422

Daniel P. Judge publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Daniel P. Judge between 2001 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Daniel P. Judge published across 26 years, from 2001 to 2026, averaging 16.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 40 publications in 2025. 44 of the 430 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2001 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 40. Peak 40 publications in 2025. 2001: 1 publication 2002: 0 publications 2003: 3 publications 2004: 8 publications 2005: 7 publications 2006: 16 publications 2007: 13 publications 2008: 9 publications 2009: 10 publications 2010: 8 publications 2011: 20 publications 2012: 20 publications 2013: 17 publications 2014: 25 publications 2015: 34 publications 2016: 15 publications 2017: 26 publications 2018: 19 publications 2019: 21 publications 2020: 16 publications 2021: 21 publications 2022: 23 publications 2023: 25 publications 2024: 29 publications 2025: 40 publications 2026: 4 publications
2001 2026

430 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Daniel P. Judge: publications per year, 2001 to 2026
Year Publications
2001 1
2002 0
2003 3
2004 8
2005 7
2006 16
2007 13
2008 9
2009 10
2010 8
2011 20
2012 20
2013 17
2014 25
2015 34
2016 15
2017 26
2018 19
2019 21
2020 16
2021 21
2022 23
2023 25
2024 29
2025 40
2026 4
Total 430
Download as CSV

Daniel P. Judge 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 Daniel P. Judge sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 321–340 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 335 publications — 24th percentile

24% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895 335
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Daniel P. Judge 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 Daniel P. Judge sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 96–97 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 97 D-Index — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779 97
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Daniel P. Judge is affiliated with the Medical University of South Carolina in the United States. Their research spans multiple areas within medicine, biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology. The primary fields of study include Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, with notable focus on subfields such as Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Nephrology, and Surgery.

Research topics frequently addressed by Daniel P. Judge involve:

  • Cardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
  • Amyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
  • Cardiovascular Effects of Exercise
  • Parathyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Viral Infections and Immunology Research

Their publication record includes contributions to several prominent journals. The most common venues for their work are:

  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Circulation
  • Circulation Genomic and Precision Medicine
  • Journal of Cardiac Failure

Daniel P. Judge's recent papers cover diverse aspects of cardiology and molecular medicine, including:

  • "Evidence-Based Assessment of Genes in Dilated Cardiomyopathy," 2021, Circulation
  • "Efficacy and Safety of Acoramidis in Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy," 2024, New England Journal of Medicine
  • "Endomyocardial Biopsy Characterization of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Prevalence of Cardiac Amyloidosis," 2020, JACC Heart Failure
  • "Epidemiology of the inherited cardiomyopathies," 2020, Nature Reviews Cardiology
  • "International Evidence Based Reappraisal of Genes Associated With Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy Using the Clinical Genome Resource Framework," 2021, Circulation Genomic and Precision Medicine

Their frequent coauthors include:

  • Douglas Stoller
  • Ray E. Hershberger
  • Cynthia A. James
  • Elizabeth T. Cirulli
  • Elizabeth Jordan

Best Publications

  • Tafamidis Treatment for Patients with Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy

    Mathew S. Maurer;Jeffrey H. Schwartz;Balarama Gundapaneni;Perry M. Elliott

  • HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus Statement on the State of Genetic Testing for the Channelopathies and Cardiomyopathies: This document was developed as a partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

    Michael J. Ackerman;Silvia G. Priori;Stephan Willems;Charles Berul

  • Losartan, an AT1 antagonist, prevents aortic aneurysm in a mouse model of Marfan syndrome.

    Jennifer P. Habashi;Daniel P. Judge;Tammy M. Holm;Ronald D. Cohn

  • A syndrome of altered cardiovascular, craniofacial, neurocognitive and skeletal development caused by mutations in TGFBR1 or TGFBR2

    Bart L Loeys;Junji Chen;Enid R Neptune;Daniel P Judge

  • Marfan’s syndrome

    Daniel P Judge;Harry C Dietz

  • HRS/EHRA expert consensus statement on the state of genetic testing for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies

    Michael J. Ackerman;Silvia G. Priori;Stephan Willems;Charles Berul

  • Angiotensin II Blockade and Aortic-Root Dilation in Marfan's Syndrome

    Benjamin S. Brooke;Jennifer P. Habashi;Daniel P. Judge;Nishant Patel

  • Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockade attenuates TGF-β–induced failure of muscle regeneration in multiple myopathic states

    Ronald D Cohn;Christel van Erp;Jennifer P Habashi;Arshia A Soleimani

  • 2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation, risk stratification, and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

    Jeffrey A. Towbin;William J. McKenna;Dominic J. Abrams;Michael J. Ackerman

  • Exercise increases age-related penetrance and arrhythmic risk in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy-associated desmosomal mutation carriers

    Cynthia A. James;Aditya Bhonsale;Crystal Tichnell;Brittney Murray

  • Genetic Evaluation of Cardiomyopathy-A Heart Failure Society of America Practice Guideline

    Ray E. Hershberger;Michael M. Givertz;Carolyn Y. Ho;Daniel P. Judge

  • TGF-β–dependent pathogenesis of mitral valve prolapse in a mouse model of Marfan syndrome

    Connie M. Ng;Alan Cheng;Loretha A. Myers;Francisco Martinez-Murillo

  • Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia A United States Experience

    Darshan Dalal;Khurram Nasir;Chandra Bomma;Kalpana Prakasa

  • Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor Signaling Attenuates Aortic Aneurysm in Mice Through ERK Antagonism

    Jennifer P. Habashi;Jefferson J. Doyle;Tammy M. Holm;Hamza Aziz

  • Studying arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia with patient-specific iPSCs

    Changsung Kim;Johnson Wong;Jianyan Wen;Shirong Wang

  • Evidence for a critical contribution of haploinsufficiency in the complex pathogenesis of Marfan syndrome

    Daniel P. Judge;Nancy J. Biery;Douglas R. Keene;Jessica Geubtner

  • Noncanonical TGFβ Signaling Contributes to Aortic Aneurysm Progression in Marfan Syndrome Mice

    Tammy M. Holm;Jennifer P. Habashi;Jefferson J. Doyle;Djahida Bedja

  • Phospholamban R14del mutation in patients diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: Evidence supporting the concept of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

    Paul A. van der Zwaag;Ingrid A. W. van Rijsingen;Angeliki Asimaki;Jan D. H. Jongbloed

  • The molecular genetics of Marfan syndrome and related disorders

    Peter N. Robinson;E. Arteaga-Solis;C. Baldock;G. Collod-Béroud

  • Genotype and Phenotype of Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis: THAOS (Transthyretin Amyloid Outcome Survey).

    Mathew S. Maurer;Mazen Hanna;Martha Grogan;Angela Dispenzieri

Frequent Co-Authors

Hugh Calkins
Hugh Calkins Johns Hopkins University
Stuart D. Russell
Stuart D. Russell Duke University
Harry C. Dietz
Harry C. Dietz Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Arthur A.M. Wilde
Arthur A.M. Wilde University of Amsterdam
David A. Bluemke
David A. Bluemke University of Wisconsin–Madison
Dennis Dooijes
Dennis Dooijes Utrecht University
Mathew S. Maurer
Mathew S. Maurer Columbia University
David A. Kass
David A. Kass Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Jeffrey E. Saffitz
Jeffrey E. Saffitz Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Bart Loeys
Bart Loeys University of Antwerp

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

The medical field in the USA offers a variety of online degree options and pathways for those seeking flexibility or alternative routes into healthcare. For students interested in the business side of medicine, online medical billing and coding with financial aid programs make it possible to enter the workforce quickly while managing costs.

For those with prior degrees or experience, some absn programs that don't require teas exams enable faster entry to nursing careers and eliminate standardized test barriers. If you aspire to leadership or administrative roles, a healthcare administration online degree can provide the flexibility to balance study, life, and work.

Current registered nurses can leverage rn to np programs online to bridge their education and advance into nurse practitioner roles. Each of these programs supports a different medical career path, helping you find the right fit for your goals, schedule, and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel P. Judge

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles