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
Neuroscience 55 4611 4239 2079 1880 196 28256

Daniel S. Marcus publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Daniel S. Marcus between 2002 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Daniel S. Marcus published across 24 years, from 2002 to 2025, averaging 10.1 papers a year. Output peaked at 29 publications in 2012. 29 of the 242 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20 25
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2002 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 29. Peak 29 publications in 2012. 2002: 1 publication 2003: 0 publications 2004: 2 publications 2005: 2 publications 2006: 2 publications 2007: 4 publications 2008: 1 publication 2009: 4 publications 2010: 3 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 29 publications 2013: 26 publications 2014: 12 publications 2015: 16 publications 2016: 14 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 12 publications 2019: 9 publications 2020: 11 publications 2021: 20 publications 2022: 15 publications 2023: 15 publications 2024: 13 publications 2025: 16 publications
2002 2025

242 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Daniel S. Marcus: publications per year, 2002 to 2025
Year Publications
2002 1
2003 0
2004 2
2005 2
2006 2
2007 4
2008 1
2009 4
2010 3
2011 4
2012 29
2013 26
2014 12
2015 16
2016 14
2017 11
2018 12
2019 9
2020 11
2021 20
2022 15
2023 15
2024 13
2025 16
Total 242
Download as CSV

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.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400 500
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 38–47 to 887+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 539. Most scientists, 539, have 98–107 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 887 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 188–197 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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 scientist 868–877 publications: 3 scientists 878–886 publications: 6 scientists 887+ publications: 100 scientists
38–47 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.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Neuroscience scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 9,597 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
38–47 18
48–57 79
58–67 193
68–77 323
78–87 406
88–97 452
98–107 539
108–117 505
118–127 522
128–137 469
138–147 456
148–157 459
158–167 397
168–177 383
178–187 350
188–197 302 196
198–207 306
208–217 262
218–227 242
228–237 220
238–247 203
248–257 174
258–267 176
268–277 175
278–287 125
288–297 116
298–307 127
308–317 128
318–327 99
328–337 89
338–347 78
348–357 96
358–367 66
368–377 59
378–387 65
388–397 54
398–407 48
408–417 49
418–427 34
428–437 31
438–447 30
448–457 31
458–467 36
468–477 40
478–487 35
488–497 30
498–507 23
508–517 26
518–527 20
528–537 23
538–547 20
548–557 20
558–567 17
568–577 14
578–587 20
588–597 20
598–607 19
608–617 18
618–627 17
628–637 11
638–647 11
648–657 11
658–667 8
668–677 7
678–687 11
688–697 10
698–707 4
708–717 6
718–727 5
728–737 5
738–747 9
748–757 9
758–767 3
768–777 7
778–787 7
788–797 6
798–807 2
808–817 2
818–827 7
828–837 0
838–847 9
848–857 3
858–867 1
868–877 3
878–886 6
887+ 100
Download as CSV

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.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400 500
Bar chart with 68 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 163+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 512. Most scientists, 512, have 46–47 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 163 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 54–55 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
30–31 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.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Neuroscience scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 9,597 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 42
32–33 172
34–35 296
36–37 435
38–39 459
40–41 456
42–43 467
44–45 478
46–47 512
48–49 435
50–51 425
52–53 418
54–55 392 55
56–57 357
58–59 334
60–61 328
62–63 260
64–65 278
66–67 239
68–69 250
70–71 210
72–73 200
74–75 189
76–77 170
78–79 146
80–81 113
82–83 126
84–85 100
86–87 84
88–89 99
90–91 84
92–93 85
94–95 72
96–97 76
98–99 45
100–101 49
102–103 43
104–105 32
106–107 45
108–109 50
110–111 32
112–113 39
114–115 32
116–117 29
118–119 27
120–121 19
122–123 23
124–125 27
126–127 16
128–129 24
130–131 13
132–133 21
134–135 17
136–137 14
138–139 15
140–141 10
142–143 10
144–145 13
146–147 9
148–149 8
150–151 6
152–153 6
154–155 7
156–157 7
158–159 10
160–161 4
162 8
163+ 100
Download as CSV

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