World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
David M. Williams

David M. Williams

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
85
Citations
30137
World Ranking
14496
National Ranking
7332

David M. Williams 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 M. Williams 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: 494 publications — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

David M. Williams 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 M. Williams 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: 85 D-Index — 29th percentile

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

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

Overview

David M. Williams is affiliated with Brown University in the United States. Their research spans several fields, primarily Medicine and Psychology, with a focus on subfields such as Physiology, Applied Psychology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Genetics, and Computational Mechanics.

The scientist's main research topics include Behavioral Health and Interventions, Obesity, Physical Activity and Diet, Physical Activity and Health, Smoking Behavior and Cessation, Eating Disorders and Behaviors, Advanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics, and Matrix Theory and Algorithms.

Williams has published extensively in several venues. Frequent publication outlets include the Annals of Behavioral Medicine, arXiv (Cornell University), the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the Journal of Behavioral Medicine, and Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

  • A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Outcome Expectancy Construct in Physical Activity Research (2021), Annals of Behavioral Medicine
  • Daily Instrumental and Affective Attitudes About Exercise: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study (2021), Annals of Behavioral Medicine
  • Exercise as a smoking cessation treatment for women: a randomized controlled trial (2021), Journal of Behavioral Medicine
  • Acute exercise-induced changes in motivation and behavioral expectation for quitting smoking as predictors of smoking behavior in women (2022), Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
  • Pasos Hacia La Salud II: A Superiority RCT Utilizing Technology to Promote Physical Activity in Latinas (2024), American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Their research collaborations frequently involve several coauthors, including Shira Dunsiger, Harold Lee, Jessica A. Emerson, Lauren Connell Bohlen, and Beth C. Bock.

Best Publications

  • 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: Executive summary: A report of the american college of cardiology foundation/american heart association task force on practice guidelines, american association for thoracic surgery, american college of radiology, american stroke association

    Loren F. Hiratzka;George L. Bakris;Joshua A. Beckman;Robert M. Bersin

  • 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease

    Loren F. Hiratzka;George L. Bakris;Joshua A. Beckman;Robert M. Bersin

  • Breath-hold gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the abdominal aorta and its major branches.

    M R Prince;D L Narasimham;J C Stanley;T L Chenevert

  • Physical Activity Intervention Studies What We Know and What We Need to Know: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Subcommittee on Physical Activity); Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research

    Bess H. Marcus;David M. Williams;Patricia M. Dubbert;James F. Sallis

  • Acute Affective Response to a Moderate-intensity Exercise Stimulus Predicts Physical Activity Participation 6 and 12 Months Later.

    David M. Williams;Shira Dunsiger;Joseph T. Ciccolo;Beth A. Lewis

  • A review of the outcome expectancy construct in physical activity research.

    David M. Williams;Eileen S. Anderson;Richard A. Winett

  • Social-cognitive determinants of physical activity: the influence of social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-regulation among participants in a church-based health promotion study.

    Eileen S. Anderson;Janet R. Wojcik;Richard A. Winett;David M. Williams

  • The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research

    David M. Williams;Ryan E. Rhodes

  • The dissected aorta: part III. Anatomy and radiologic diagnosis of branch-vessel compromise.

    D. M. Williams;Do Yun Lee;B. H. Hamilton;M. V. Marx

  • Sensitivity of the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score, a Novel Guideline-Based Tool for Identification of Acute Aortic Dissection at Initial Presentation Results From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

    Adam M. Rogers;Luke K. Hermann;Anna M. Booher;Christoph A. Nienaber

  • Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta

    M R Prince;D L Narasimham;W T Jacoby;D M Williams

  • The dissected aorta: percutaneous treatment of ischemic complications--principles and results.

    David M. Williams;Do Y. Lee;Brian H. Hamilton;M. Victoria Marx

  • Does affective valence during and immediately following a 10-min walk predict concurrent and future physical activity?

    David M. Williams;Shira Dunsiger;Shira Dunsiger;Ernestine G. Jennings;Ernestine G. Jennings;Bess H. Marcus;Bess H. Marcus;Bess H. Marcus

  • Penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers of the descending thoracic aorta: evaluation with CT and distinction from aortic dissection.

    Ella A. Kazerooni;Robert L. Bree;David M. Williams

  • Language in autism and specific language impairment: where are the links?

    David M. Williams;Nicola Botting;Jill Boucher

  • Surgical Delay for Acute Type A Dissection With Malperfusion

    G.Michael Deeb;David M Williams;Steven F Bolling;Leslie E Quint

  • A comparison of internet and print-based physical activity interventions

    Bess H. Marcus;Beth A. Lewis;David M. Williams;Shira Dunsiger

  • Aortic dissection: CT features that distinguish true lumen from false lumen

    M A LePage;L E Quint;S S Sonnad;G M Deeb

  • Diagnosis and endovascular treatment of iliocaval compression syndrome.

    Darren R. Hurst;Andrew R. Forauer;Jess R. Bloom;Lazar J. Greenfield

  • 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease: Executive Summary

    Loren F. Hiratzka;George L. Bakris;Joshua A. Beckman;Robert M. Bersin

Frequent Co-Authors

Shira Dunsiger
Shira Dunsiger Brown University
Bess H. Marcus
Bess H. Marcus Brown University
Gilbert R. Upchurch
Gilbert R. Upchurch University of Florida
Beth C. Bock
Beth C. Bock Brown University
Kim A. Eagle
Kim A. Eagle University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
James C. Stanley
James C. Stanley University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Ella A. Kazerooni
Ella A. Kazerooni University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Christopher Jarrold
Christopher Jarrold University of Bristol
Ryan E. Rhodes
Ryan E. Rhodes University of Victoria
Thomas W. Wakefield
Thomas W. Wakefield University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

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

If you’re interested in medicine but exploring flexible or alternative options, there are several online degrees that can elevate your healthcare career. Many students are attracted to programs that allow them to balance work, study, and personal responsibilities.

For registered nurses looking to earn a bachelor’s degree, online rn-bsn programs without clinicals are available, minimizing the need for in-person training.

Those aiming for advanced practice roles may consider the fastest msn to dnp program, or explore flexible dnp programs online designed for working nurses. Both options offer streamlined paths to doctoral credentials.

Aspiring nurses can also look into the fastest lpn program for a quicker route into the nursing profession. Each of these online pathways offers unique advantages for students at different career stages.

Best Scientists Citing David M. Williams

Trending Scientists