World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
55
Citations
28256
World Ranking
4611
National Ranking
2079

Daniel S. Marcus publication distribution in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Neuroscience in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel S. Marcus sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 18 scientists 48–57 publications: 79 scientists 58–67 publications: 193 scientists 68–77 publications: 323 scientists 78–87 publications: 406 scientists 88–97 publications: 452 scientists 98–107 publications: 539 scientists 108–117 publications: 505 scientists 118–127 publications: 522 scientists 128–137 publications: 469 scientists 138–147 publications: 456 scientists 148–157 publications: 459 scientists 158–167 publications: 397 scientists 168–177 publications: 383 scientists 178–187 publications: 350 scientists 188–197 publications: 302 scientists 198–207 publications: 306 scientists 208–217 publications: 262 scientists 218–227 publications: 242 scientists 228–237 publications: 220 scientists 238–247 publications: 203 scientists 248–257 publications: 174 scientists 258–267 publications: 176 scientists 268–277 publications: 175 scientists 278–287 publications: 125 scientists 288–297 publications: 116 scientists 298–307 publications: 127 scientists 308–317 publications: 128 scientists 318–327 publications: 99 scientists 328–337 publications: 89 scientists 338–347 publications: 78 scientists 348–357 publications: 96 scientists 358–367 publications: 66 scientists 368–377 publications: 59 scientists 378–387 publications: 65 scientists 388–397 publications: 54 scientists 398–407 publications: 48 scientists 408–417 publications: 49 scientists 418–427 publications: 34 scientists 428–437 publications: 31 scientists 438–447 publications: 30 scientists 448–457 publications: 31 scientists 458–467 publications: 36 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 35 scientists 488–497 publications: 30 scientists 498–507 publications: 23 scientists 508–517 publications: 26 scientists 518–527 publications: 20 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 20 scientists 548–557 publications: 20 scientists 558–567 publications: 17 scientists 568–577 publications: 14 scientists 578–587 publications: 20 scientists 588–597 publications: 20 scientists 598–607 publications: 19 scientists 608–617 publications: 18 scientists 618–627 publications: 17 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 11 scientists 648–657 publications: 11 scientists 658–667 publications: 8 scientists 668–677 publications: 7 scientists 678–687 publications: 11 scientists 688–697 publications: 10 scientists 698–707 publications: 4 scientists 708–717 publications: 6 scientists 718–727 publications: 5 scientists 728–737 publications: 5 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 9 scientists 758–767 publications: 3 scientists 768–777 publications: 7 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 6 scientists 798–807 publications: 2 scientists 808–817 publications: 2 scientists 818–827 publications: 7 scientists 828–837 publications: 0 scientists 838–847 publications: 9 scientists 848–857 publications: 3 scientists 858–867 publications: 1 scientists 868–877 publications: 3 scientists 878–886 publications: 6 scientists 887+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 887+

This scientist: 196 publications — 61st percentile

61% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 887 publications or more.

Daniel S. Marcus D-index placement in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Neuroscience scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel S. Marcus sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 42 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 172 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 296 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 435 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 459 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 456 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 467 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 478 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 512 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 435 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 425 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 418 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 392 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 357 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 334 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 328 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 260 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 278 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 239 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 250 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 210 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 200 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 189 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 170 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 146 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 113 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 126 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 100 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 84 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 99 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 84 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 85 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 72 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 76 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 45 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 49 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 43 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 32 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 45 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 50 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 32 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 39 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 29 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 27 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 19 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 23 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 27 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 16 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 24 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 21 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 14 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 15 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 10 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 10 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 13 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 9 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 8 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 6 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 6 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 7 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 7 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 10 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 4 scientists 162 D-Index: 8 scientists 163+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 163+

This scientist: 55 D-Index — 52nd percentile

52% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 163 D-Index or more.

Overview

Daniel S. Marcus is affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis in the United States. Their primary field of study is Medicine, with a significant focus on Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Mental Health, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, and Neurology.

The researcher has contributed extensively to topics such as Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research, Functional Brain Connectivity Studies, Medical Image Segmentation Techniques, Alzheimer's Disease Research and Treatments, Brain Tumor Detection and Classification, and Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications.

Some of the notable recent publications include:

  • Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection, 2022, Nature Communications
  • A deep learning framework identifies dimensional representations of Alzheimer's Disease from brain structure, 2021, Nature Communications
  • Amyloid and Tau Pathology Associations With Personality Traits, Neuropsychiatric Symptoms, and Cognitive Lifestyle in the Preclinical Phases of Sporadic and Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease, 2020, Biological Psychiatry
  • MRI-based Identification and Classification of Major Intracranial Tumor Types by Using a 3D Convolutional Neural Network: A Retrospective Multi-institutional Analysis, 2021, Radiology Artificial Intelligence
  • Mapping language function with task-based vs. resting-state functional MRI, 2020, PLoS ONE

Frequent co-authors include:

  • Aristeidis Sotiras
  • Pamela LaMontagne
  • John C. Morris
  • Tammie L.S. Benzinger
  • Christos Davatzikos

Their work has appeared often in the following publication venues:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Alzheimer's & Dementia
  • Nature Communications
  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Best Publications

  • Clinical and Biomarker Changes in Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Disease

    Randall J. Bateman;Chengjie Xiong;Tammie L.S. Benzinger;Anne M. Fagan

  • The Human Connectome Project: A data acquisition perspective

    D. C. Van Essen;Kamil Ugurbil;Edward J Auerbach

  • Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS): Cross-sectional MRI Data in Young, Middle Aged, Nondemented, and Demented Older Adults

    Daniel S. Marcus;Tracy H. Wang;Jamie Parker;John G. Csernansky

  • A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume.

    Randy L. Buckner;Denise Head;Denise Head;Jamie Parker;Jamie Parker;Anthony F. Fotenos

  • Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challenge

    Spyridon Bakas;Mauricio Reyes;Andras Jakab;Stefan Bauer

  • The Human Connectome Project's neuroimaging approach

    Matthew F Glasser;Stephen M Smith;Daniel S Marcus;Jesper L R Andersson

  • Serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease

    Oliver Preische;Oliver Preische;Stephanie A. Schultz;Anja Apel;Anja Apel;Jens Kuhle

  • Informatics and data mining tools and strategies for the human connectome project.

    Daniel S. Marcus;John W. Harwell;Timothy R. Olsen;Michael R. Hodge

  • OASIS-3: Longitudinal Neuroimaging, Clinical, and Cognitive Dataset for Normal Aging and Alzheimer Disease

    Pamela J. LaMontagne;Tammie Ls. Benzinger;John C. Morris;Sarah Keefe

  • Open access series of imaging studies: Longitudinal mri data in nondemented and demented older adults

    Daniel S. Marcus;Anthony F. Fotenos;John G. Csernansky;John C. Morris

  • The Extensible Neuroimaging Archive Toolkit: an informatics platform for managing, exploring, and sharing neuroimaging data.

    Daniel S. Marcus;Timothy R. Olsen;Mohana Ramaratnam;Randy L. Buckner

  • Spatial patterns of neuroimaging biomarker change in individuals from families with autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal study

    Brian A Gordon;Tyler M Blazey;Yi Su;Amrita Hari-Raj

  • White Matter Hyperintensities Are a Core Feature of Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network

    Seonjoo Lee;Fawad Viqar;Fawad Viqar;Molly E. Zimmerman;Molly E. Zimmerman;Atul Narkhede

  • Extending the Human Connectome Project across ages: Imaging protocols for the Lifespan Development and Aging projects

    Michael P. Harms;Leah H. Somerville;Beau M. Ances;Jesper Andersson

  • CLINICAL AND BIOMARKER CHANGES IN DOMINANTLY INHERITED ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

    PR Schofield;RJ Bateman;C Xiong;Tls Benzinger

  • Human Connectome Project informatics: quality control, database services, and data visualization.

    Daniel S Marcus;Michael P Harms;Abraham Z Snyder;Mark Jenkinson

  • Cerebrospinal fluid tau and ptau181 increase with cortical amyloid deposition in cognitively normal individuals: Implications for future clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease

    Anne M. Fagan;Mark A. Mintun;Aarti R. Shah;Patricia Aldea

  • Longitudinal change in CSF biomarkers in autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease.

    Anne M. Fagan;Chengjie Xiong;Mateusz S. Jasielec;Randall J. Bateman

  • Regional variability of imaging biomarkers in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease

    Tammie L. S. Benzinger;Tyler Blazey;Clifford R. Jack;Robert A. Koeppe

  • Decreased cerebrospinal fluid Abeta(42) correlates with brain atrophy in cognitively normal elderly.

    Anne M. Fagan;Denise Head;Aarti R. Shah;Daniel Marcus

  • White matter hyperintensities are a core feature of Alzheimer's disease: Evidence from the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network

    Seonjoo Lee;Fawad Viqar;Molly E. Zimmerman;Atul Narkhede

Frequent Co-Authors

John C. Morris
John C. Morris Washington University in St. Louis
Tammie L.S. Benzinger
Tammie L.S. Benzinger Washington University in St. Louis
Randall J. Bateman
Randall J. Bateman Washington University in St. Louis
Peter R. Schofield
Peter R. Schofield Neuroscience Research Australia
Nick C. Fox
Nick C. Fox University College London
Stephen Salloway
Stephen Salloway Brown University
Anne M. Fagan
Anne M. Fagan Washington University in St. Louis
Alison Goate
Alison Goate Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Ralph N. Martins
Ralph N. Martins Edith Cowan University
Richard Mayeux
Richard Mayeux Columbia 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 neuroscience often leads students to adjacent fields where online learning offers accessibility and flexibility. For those interested in understanding human behavior, it may be beneficial to study psychology online. Affordable online programs in psychology can open doors not just to research, but also to applied roles in mental health, counseling, and more.

Social work is another rewarding career path related to neuroscience and mental health. If you’re searching for accessible options, consider enrolling in the easiest online msw program. These programs are ideal for students seeking to make a direct impact through advocacy or clinical support.

Clinical psychology is a common destination for neuroscience graduates. Earning a doctorate can be streamlined through online psyd programs apa accredited, allowing students to balance advanced study with other commitments while ensuring the highest standards of training.

For those drawn to therapy and family dynamics, the online mft programs (Marriage and Family Therapy) offer efficient paths to licensure and professional practice, addressing the growing need for mental health specialists.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel S. Marcus

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles