World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
97
Citations
41422
World Ranking
9159
National Ranking
4724

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.

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: 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.

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.

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: 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.

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