World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
81
Citations
37753
World Ranking
16396
National Ranking
8250

David S. Siegel 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 S. Siegel 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: 611 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: 517 publications — 61st percentile

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

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

David S. Siegel 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 S. Siegel 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: 400 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: 81 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 1958 - Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Overview

David S. Siegel is affiliated with Hackensack University Medical Center in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on the fields of Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, with a significant emphasis on Hematology, Molecular Biology, Oncology, Immunology, and Cancer Research.

The scientist has contributed extensively to topics such as Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments, Protein Degradation and Inhibitors, CAR-T Cell Therapy Research, Cancer Treatment and Pharmacology, Peptidase Inhibition and Analysis, Cancer Mechanisms and Therapy, and Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research.

Among the recent papers authored or co-authored by David S. Siegel are the following:

  • Idecabtagene Vicleucel in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 2020, The Lancet
  • Tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit: a multicentre observational study, 2020, The Lancet Rheumatology
  • Targeting MCL-1 in hematologic malignancies: Rationale and progress, 2020, Blood Reviews
  • Orvacabtagene autoleucel (orva-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR T cell therapy for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): update of the phase 1/2 EVOLVE study (NCT03430011), 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology

David S. Siegel has frequently collaborated with a range of researchers, including Noa Biran, David H. Vesole, Harsh Parmar, Jesús G. Berdeja, and Sundar Jagannath.

The scientist's work is published predominantly in the following venues:

  • Blood
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma & Leukemia
  • Transplantation and Cellular Therapy
  • Leukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphoma

David S. Siegel was recognized as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1958.

Best Publications

  • A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma.

    Paul G. Richardson;Bart Barlogie;James Berenson;Seema Singhal

  • Anti-BCMA CAR T-Cell Therapy bb2121 in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

    Noopur Raje;Jesus Berdeja;Yi Lin;David Siegel

  • Initial genome sequencing and analysis of multiple myeloma

    Michael A. Chapman;Michael S. Lawrence;Jonathan J. Keats;Kristian Cibulskis

  • Idecabtagene Vicleucel in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

    Nikhil C Munshi;Larry D Anderson;Nina Shah;Deepu Madduri

  • Lenalidomide plus Dexamethasone for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma in North America

    Donna M. Weber;Christine Chen;Ruben Niesvizky;Michael Wang

  • Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial

    S Vincent Rajkumar;Susanna Jacobus;Natalie S Callander;Rafael Fonseca

  • Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1

    S. Vincent Rajkumar;Jean Luc Harousseau;Brian Durie;Kenneth C. Anderson

  • A phase 2 study of two doses of bortezomib in relapsed or refractory myeloma

    S. Jagannath;B. Barlogie;J. Berenson;D. Siegel

  • Risk of progression and survival in multiple myeloma relapsing after therapy with IMiDs and bortezomib: A multicenter international myeloma working group study

    S. K. Kumar;J. H. Lee;J. J. Lahuerta;G. Morgan

  • Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group

    Pieter Sonneveld;Hervé Avet-Loiseau;Sagar Lonial;Saad Usmani

  • A phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib (PX-171-003-A1) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

    David S. Siegel;Thomas Martin;Michael Wang;Ravi Vij

  • Frequency, Characteristics, and Reversibility of Peripheral Neuropathy During Treatment of Advanced Multiple Myeloma With Bortezomib

    Paul G. Richardson;Hannah Briemberg;Sundar Jagannath;Patrick Y. Wen

  • Total Therapy With Tandem Transplants for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

    B. Barlogie;S. Jagannath;K.R. Desikan;S. Mattox

  • Toxic acute tubular necrosis following treatment with zoledronate (Zometa)

    Glen S. Markowitz;Paul L. Fine;Jay I. Stack;Cheryl L. Kunis

  • Pomalidomide alone or in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 2 study.

    Paul G. Richardson;David S. Siegel;Ravi Vij;Craig C. Hofmeister

  • International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma.

    M Dimopoulos;E Terpos;R L Comenzo;P Tosi

  • Results of high-dose therapy for 1000 patients with multiple myeloma: durable complete remissions and superior survival in the absence of chromosome 13 abnormalities.

    Raman Desikan;Bart Barlogie;Bart Barlogie;Jeffrey Sawyer;Jeffrey Sawyer;Dan Ayers;Dan Ayers

  • Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

    Meletios Dimopoulos;Hang Quach;Maria-Victoria Mateos;Ola Landgren

  • Integrated safety profile of single-agent carfilzomib: experience from 526 patients enrolled in 4 phase II clinical studies

    David Siegel;Thomas Martin;Ajay Nooka;R. Donald Harvey

  • Erratum: Risk of progression and survival in multiple myeloma relapsing after therapy with IMiDs and bortezomib: A multicenter international myeloma working group study (Leukemia (2012) 26 (149-157) DOI: 10.1038/leu.2011.196)

    S. K. Kumar;J. H. Lee;J. J. Lahuerta;G. Morgan

Frequent Co-Authors

Sagar Lonial
Sagar Lonial Emory University
Ravi Vij
Ravi Vij Washington University in St. Louis
Paul G. Richardson
Paul G. Richardson Harvard University
Meletios A. Dimopoulos
Meletios A. Dimopoulos National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Robert Z. Orlowski
Robert Z. Orlowski The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Noopur Raje
Noopur Raje Harvard University
Nikhil C. Munshi
Nikhil C. Munshi Harvard University
Andre Goy
Andre Goy Hackensack University Medical Center
A. Keith Stewart
A. Keith Stewart Mayo Clinic
David H. Vesole
David H. Vesole Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

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 are interested in studying Medicine in the USA, there are several related degrees and alternative career pathways to consider. Many students start their healthcare journey through adn programs, which can be a more accessible route to entering the nursing field and gaining hands-on clinical experience quickly.

For those who prefer working in healthcare administration or behind-the-scenes roles, pursuing a health care administration degree online offers valuable skills for managing medical facilities, patient services, and healthcare policies.

Interested in a flexible, administrative healthcare role? You might consider accredited medical billing and coding schools online. These programs teach specialized knowledge for processing insurance claims and managing medical records, which are vital to keeping clinics and hospitals running smoothly.

Some students look for nursing programs with fewer standard entry barriers. There are nursing schools that don't require teas or HESI exams, making it easier to start a nursing career for those who may be anxious about standardized testing.

Exploring these degree options can help you find the healthcare career path that best matches your interests, schedule, and educational goals.

Best Scientists Citing David S. Siegel

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles