World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
87
Citations
36018
World Ranking
13463
National Ranking
6844

David A. Cox 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 David A. Cox 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: 358 publications — 29th percentile

29% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

David A. Cox 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 David A. Cox 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: 87 D-Index — 34th percentile

34% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

David A. Cox is affiliated with the University of Alabama at Birmingham in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on the field of Medicine with a significant emphasis on Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Molecular Biology, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Surgery, and Physiology.

The scientist's work covers key topics including:

  • Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
  • Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Diabetes Management and Research
  • Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases

David A. Cox has published extensively in a range of recognized medical journals. Frequent publication venues include:

  • New England Journal of Medicine
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
  • Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
  • Diabetes Care
  • Diabetes Therapy

Recent papers authored by or involving David A. Cox comprise:

  • Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg Versus Dulaglutide 1.5 mg in Metformin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a Randomized Controlled Trial (AWARD-11), 2021, Diabetes Care
  • Once-Weekly Dulaglutide for the Treatment of Youths with Type 2 Diabetes, 2022, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Effect of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on weight in patients with type 2 diabetes: Exploratory analyses of AWARD-11, 2021, Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
  • Stent Thrombosis Risk Over Time on the Basis of Clinical Presentation and Platelet Reactivity, 2021, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
  • Prognostic factors for changes in the timed 4-stair climb in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and implications for measuring drug efficacy: A multi-institutional collaboration, 2020, PLoS ONE

Collaboration is a notable aspect of their work. Frequent co-authors include:

  • Juan P. Frías
  • Enzo Bonora
  • Raleigh Malik
  • M. Angelyn Bethel
  • Timothy D. Henry

Best Publications

  • A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease

    Gregg W. Stone;Stephen G. Ellis;David A. Cox;James Hermiller

  • Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction.

    Gregg W. Stone;Cindy L. Grines;David A. Cox;Eulogio Garcia

  • Bivalirudin for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

    Gregg W. Stone;Brent T. McLaurin;David A. Cox;Michel E. Bertrand

  • Coronary Angioplasty with or without Stent Implantation for Acute Myocardial Infarction

    Cindy L. Grines;David A. Cox;Gregg W. Stone;Eulogio Garcia

  • One-Year Clinical Results With the Slow-Release, Polymer-Based, Paclitaxel-Eluting TAXUS Stent The TAXUS-IV Trial

    Gregg W. Stone;Stephen G. Ellis;David A. Cox;James Hermiller

  • Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study

    Gregg W. Stone;Bernhard Witzenbichler;Giora Weisz;Michael J. Rinaldi

  • Percutaneous recanalization of chronically occluded coronary arteries: a consensus document: part II.

    Gregg W. Stone;David E. Kandzari;Roxana Mehran;Antonio Colombo

  • Raloxifene and Cardiovascular Events in Osteoporotic Postmenopausal Women: Four-Year Results From the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) Randomized Trial

    Elizabeth Barrett-Connor;Deborah Grady;Andreas Sashegyi;Pamela W. Anderson

  • Relationship between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women.

    László B Tankó;Claus Christiansen;David A Cox;Mary Jane Geiger

  • Prediction of mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: the CADILLAC risk score.

    Amir Halkin;Mandeep Singh;Eugenia Nikolsky;Cindy L. Grines

  • Distal Microcirculatory Protection During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    Gregg W. Stone;John Webb;David A. Cox;Bruce R. Brodie

  • Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction.

    Paul Sorajja;Bernard J Gersh;David A Cox;Michael G McLaughlin

  • Atherosclerosis impairs flow-mediated dilation of coronary arteries in humans.

    D A Cox;J A Vita;C B Treasure;R D Fish

  • Impact of Renal Insufficiency in Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction

    H. Mehrdad Sadeghi;Gregg W. Stone;Cindy L. Grines;Roxana Mehran

  • Randomized Comparison of Distal Protection With a Filter-Based Catheter and a Balloon Occlusion and Aspiration System During Percutaneous Intervention of Diseased Saphenous Vein Aorto-Coronary Bypass Grafts

    Gregg W. Stone;Campbell Rogers;James Hermiller;Robert Feldman

  • Bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial

    Gregg W Stone;Harvey D White;E Magnus Ohman;Michel E Bertrand

  • The effects of hormone replacement therapy and raloxifene on C-reactive protein and homocysteine in healthy postmenopausal women: a randomized, controlled trial.

    Brian W. Walsh;Sofia Paul;Robert A. Wild;Robert A. Dean

  • Relationship Between Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents The Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) Study

    Bernhard Witzenbichler;Akiko Maehara;Giora Weisz;Franz Josef Neumann

  • Incidence, Predictors, and Impact of Post-Discharge Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

    Philippe Genereux;Gennaro Giustino;Bernhard Witzenbichler;Giora Weisz

  • A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease☆

    G.W Stone;S.G Ellis;D.A Cox

Frequent Co-Authors

Gregg W. Stone
Gregg W. Stone Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Roxana Mehran
Roxana Mehran Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Alexandra J. Lansky
Alexandra J. Lansky Yale University
James E. Tcheng
James E. Tcheng Duke University
Eulogio García
Eulogio García Hospital Clínico San Carlos
Cindy L. Grines
Cindy L. Grines Wayne State University
Bruce R. Brodie
Bruce R. Brodie Moses H Cone Memorial Hospital
Giulio Guagliumi
Giulio Guagliumi ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital
Jeffrey W. Moses
Jeffrey W. Moses Columbia University Medical Center
William W. O'Neill
William W. O'Neill University of Miami

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

Interested in medicine but looking for flexible, affordable options? There are several related online degrees that offer alternative career pathways in healthcare. Many students start their journey through specialized online programs designed for roles such as medical billing, nursing, and advanced practice.

For those drawn to administrative roles, exploring the cheapest medical billing and coding online courses can provide fast entry into health information management. The demand for certified medical billers and coders is steadily rising within hospitals and clinics.

Nursing continues to be a desirable and in-demand profession with a range of online options. If cost is a primary concern, you may be wondering, what is the cheapest online college for nursing? These programs make it possible to earn qualifications without the high expenses often associated with traditional colleges.

Aspiring nurse practitioners can also benefit from flexible distance learning—start by researching the cheapest np school online. For those considering academic or leadership roles, online nursing phd programs are increasingly available and affordable, opening doors to teaching, research, and executive positions.

Best Scientists Citing David A. Cox

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles