World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
36
Citations
6064
World Ranking
11185
National Ranking
707

Dean C. Barratt publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Dean C. Barratt sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 166 publications — 33rd percentile

33% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Dean C. Barratt D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Dean C. Barratt sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 36 D-Index — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Dean C. Barratt is affiliated with University College London in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily spans the fields of Medicine, Computer Science, and Engineering.

The scientist has contributed extensively to several subfields of study, including:

  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Artificial Intelligence

Their work focuses on key topics such as:

  • Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • AI in cancer detection
  • Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging

Dean C. Barratt has authored several recent papers, including:

  • Comparison of manual and semi-automatic registration in augmented reality image-guided liver surgery: a clinical feasibility study (2020, Surgical Endoscopy)
  • Interactive 3D U-net for the segmentation of the pancreas in computed tomography scans (2020, Physics in Medicine and Biology)
  • Image quality assessment for machine learning tasks using meta-reinforcement learning (2022, Medical Image Analysis)
  • DeepReg: a deep learning toolkit for medical image registration (2020, The Journal of Open Source Software)
  • Domain generalization for prostate segmentation in transrectal ultrasound images: A multi-center study (2022, Medical Image Analysis)

The scientist frequently collaborates with a group of co-authors, notable among them are:

  • Yipeng Hu
  • Shaheer U. Saeed
  • Qianye Yang
  • Zachary M. C. Baum
  • Matthew J. Clarkson

Dean C. Barratt's work is published predominantly in venues such as:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Medical Image Analysis
  • Physics in Medicine and Biology
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Best Publications

  • Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge.

    Geert J. S. Litjens;Robert Toth;Wendy J. M. van de Ven;Caroline Hoeks

  • Automatic Multi-Organ Segmentation on Abdominal CT With Dense V-Networks

    Eli Gibson;Francesco Giganti;Yipeng Hu;Ester Bonmati

  • NiftyNet: a deep-learning platform for medical imaging

    Eli Gibson;Wenqi Li;Carole H. Sudre;Lucas Fidon

  • Weakly-supervised convolutional neural networks for multimodal image registration.

    Yipeng Hu;Yipeng Hu;Marc Modat;Eli Gibson;Wenqi Li

  • MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions

    Yipeng Hu;Hashim Uddin Ahmed;Zeike A. Taylor;Clare Allen

  • Instantiation and registration of statistical shape models of the femur and pelvis using 3D ultrasound imaging.

    Dean C. Barratt;Carolyn S.K. Chan;Carolyn S.K. Chan;Philip J. Edwards;Philip J. Edwards;Graeme P. Penney;Graeme P. Penney

  • Application of soft tissue modelling to image-guided surgery.

    Timothy J. Carter;Maxime Sermesant;David M. Cash;Dean C. Barratt

  • Self-calibrating 3D-ultrasound-based bone registration for minimally invasive orthopedic surgery

    D.C. Barratt;G.P. Penney;C.S.K. Chan;M. Slomczykowski

  • Label-driven weakly-supervised learning for multimodal deformarle image registration

    Yipeng Hu;Marc Modat;Eli Gibson;Nooshin Ghavami

  • Apparatus and method for registering two medical images

    Dean Barratt;Yipeng Hu

  • Tissue deformation and shape models in image-guided interventions: a discussion paper.

    David J. Hawkes;Dean C. Barratt;Jane M. Blackall;Carolyn S. K. Chan

  • The SmartTarget Biopsy Trial: A Prospective, Within-person Randomised, Blinded Trial Comparing the Accuracy of Visual-registration and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image-fusion Targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

    Sami Hamid;Sami Hamid;Ian A. Donaldson;Ian A. Donaldson;Yipeng Hu;Rachael Rodell

  • The Accuracy of Different Biopsy Strategies for the Detection of Clinically Important Prostate Cancer: A Computer Simulation

    Emilie Lecornet;Hashim Uddin Ahmed;Hashim Uddin Ahmed;Yipeng Hu;Caroline M. Moore;Caroline M. Moore

  • A Nonlinear Biomechanical Model Based Registration Method for Aligning Prone and Supine MR Breast Images

    Lianghao Han;John H. Hipwell;Bjorn Eiben;Dean Barratt

  • Accuracy and reproducibility of CFD predicted wall shear stress using 3D ultrasound images

    A. D. Augst;D. C. Barratt;A. D. Hughes;F. P. Glor

  • Cadaver validation of intensity-based ultrasound to CT registration

    Graeme P. Penney;Graeme P. Penney;Dean C. Barratt;Dean C. Barratt;Carolyn S. K. Chan;Mike Slomczykowski

  • Image-based carotid flow reconstruction: a comparison between MRI and ultrasound

    F P Glor;B Ariff;A D Hughes;L A Crowe

  • Optimisation and evaluation of an electromagnetic tracking device for high-accuracy three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the carotid arteries.

    Dean C. Barratt;Alun H. Davies;Alun D. Hughes;Simon A. Thom

  • MR Navigated Breast Surgery: Method and Initial Clinical Experience

    Timothy Carter;Christine Tanner;Nicolas Beechey-Newman;Dean Barratt

  • Adversarial deformation regularization for training image registration neural networks

    Yipeng Hu;Eli Gibson;Nooshin Ghavami;Ester Bonmati

  • Modelling Prostate Motion for Data Fusion During Image-Guided Interventions

    Yipeng Hu;T. J. Carter;H. U. Ahmed;M. Emberton

  • Prostate Cancer Risk Inflation as a Consequence of Image-targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: A Computer Simulation Study

    Nicola L. Robertson;Yipeng Hu;Hashim U. Ahmed;Alex Freeman

  • Automatic segmentation of prostate MRI using convolutional neural networks: Investigating the impact of network architecture on the accuracy of volume measurement and MRI-ultrasound registration.

    Nooshin Ghavami;Yipeng Hu;Eli Gibson;Ester Bonmati

  • Inter-site Variability in Prostate Segmentation Accuracy Using Deep Learning

    Eli Gibson;Yipeng Hu;Nooshin Ghavami;Hashim Uddin Ahmed

  • Cadaver Validation of the Use of Ultrasound for 3D Model Instantiation of Bony Anatomy in Image Guided Orthopaedic Surgery

    Carolyn S. K. Chan;Dean C. Barratt;Philip J. Edwards;Philip J. Edwards;Graeme P. Penney

  • Freehand Ultrasound Image Simulation with Spatially-Conditioned Generative Adversarial Networks

    Yipeng Hu;Eli Gibson;Li-Lin Lee;Weidi Xie

Frequent Co-Authors

David J. Hawkes
David J. Hawkes University College London
Mark Emberton
Mark Emberton University College London
Hashim U. Ahmed
Hashim U. Ahmed Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Tom Vercauteren
Tom Vercauteren King's College London
Graeme P. Penney
Graeme P. Penney King's College London
Matthew J. Clarkson
Matthew J. Clarkson University College London
J. Alison Noble
J. Alison Noble University of Oxford
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy University College London
Brian R. Davidson
Brian R. Davidson University College London
Anant Madabhushi
Anant Madabhushi Emory 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 computer science often opens doors to related fields and flexible learning opportunities. Many students look for affordable and accessible programs, such as the cheapest online physics degree options, to diversify their knowledge. This approach is especially useful for those interested in broadening their STEM expertise without compromising on cost or convenience.

Data science is another fast-growing career pathway. For those interested in analyzing big data and utilizing technology for insights, consider browsing available data science degree programs. These degrees can be completed online, making them accessible to students everywhere.

Engineering fields are in high demand as well. If you are interested in electronics, consider the best online electrical engineering programs USA. Online engineering degrees offer flexibility, strong job prospects, and competitive salaries.

For a faster track into the tech workforce, explore certifications that pay well. These certifications can be earned in less time than a traditional degree and are often recognized by top employers, helping you start or advance your tech career quickly.

Best Scientists Citing Dean C. Barratt

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles