World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
95
Citations
49207
World Ranking
9878
National Ranking
386

Emiel J. Th. Rutgers 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 Emiel J. Th. Rutgers 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: 433 publications — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Emiel J. Th. Rutgers 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 Emiel J. Th. Rutgers 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: 95 D-Index — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Emiel J. Th. Rutgers is affiliated with the Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital in the Netherlands. Their research primarily spans the fields of Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine, with focused contributions in Cancer Research and Oncology. The scientist's work also intersects with Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Genetics, and Molecular Biology as subfields of interest.

The main topics covered in their research include:

  • Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Advanced Breast Cancer Therapies
  • BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
  • Breast Implant and Reconstruction

Emiel J. Th. Rutgers has frequently collaborated with several co-authors including Fátima Cardoso, Coralie Poncet, Martine Piccart, Laura van 't Veer, and Suzette Delaloge. This collaborative work has been published across multiple renowned venues. Among the most frequent publication venues are Cancer Research, Journal of Clinical Oncology, European Journal of Cancer, European Journal of Surgical Oncology, and The Breast.

The following selected recent papers reflect the scope and nature of their research:

  • "Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021," published in 2021 in Annals of Oncology
  • "70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age," published in 2021 in The Lancet Oncology
  • "Trastuzumab for early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 13,864 women in seven randomised trials," published in 2021 in The Lancet Oncology
  • "Radiotherapy or Surgery of the Axilla After a Positive Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer: 10-Year Results of the Randomized Controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial," published in 2022 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Understanding breast cancer complexity to improve patient outcomes: The St Gallen International Consensus Conference for the Primary Therapy of Individuals with Early Breast Cancer 2023," published in 2023 in Annals of Oncology

Best Publications

  • A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer

    Marc J. van de Vijver;Yudong D. He;Laura J. van 't Veer;Hongyue Dai

  • Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013

    A Goldhirsch;E P Winer;A S Coates;R D Gelber

  • Efficacy of MRI and Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in Women with a Familial or Genetic Predisposition

    Mieke Kriege;Cecile T.M. Brekelmans;Carla Boetes;Peter E. Besnard

  • Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

    Mila Donker;Geertjan van Tienhoven;Marieke E Straver;Philip Meijnen

  • 70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

    Fatima Cardoso;Laura J. van’t Veer;Jan Bogaerts;Leen Slaets

  • Validation and Clinical Utility of a 70-Gene Prognostic Signature for Women With Node-Negative Breast Cancer

    Marc Buyse;Sherene Loi;Laura van't Veer;Giuseppe Viale

  • Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci

    Kyriaki Michailidou;Kyriaki Michailidou;Sara Lindström;Sara Lindström;Joe Dennis;Jonathan Beesley

  • De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017

    G. Curigliano;H. J. Burstein;E. P. Winer;M. Gnant

  • Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials

    Bernard Asselain;William Barlow;John Bartlett;Jonas Bergh

  • Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I–II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial

    Saskia Litière;Gustavo Werutsky;Ian S Fentiman;Emiel Rutgers

  • Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Profiling With Common Genetic Variants

    Nasim Mavaddat;Paul D.P. Pharoah;Kyriaki Michailidou;Jonathan Tyrer

  • Micrometastases or Isolated Tumor Cells and the Outcome of Breast Cancer

    Maaike de Boer;Carolien H.M. van Deurzen;Jos A.A.M. van Dijck;George F. Borm

  • Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial.

    Fatima Cardoso;Laura Van't Veer;Emiel Rutgers;Sherene Loi

  • Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci

    Montserrat Garcia-Closas;Fergus J. Couch;Sara Lindstrom;Kyriaki Michailidou

  • Breast-Conserving Treatment With or Without Radiotherapy in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: 15-Year Recurrence Rates and Outcome After a Recurrence, From the EORTC 10853 Randomized Phase III Trial

    Mila Donker;Saskia Litière;Gustavo Werutsky;Jean Pierre Julien

  • Lymphatic drainage patterns from the breast.

    Susanne H. Estourgie;Omgo E. Nieweg;Renato A. Valdés Olmos;Emiel J. Th. Rutgers

  • Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients: the MARI procedure.

    Mila Donker;Marieke E. Straver;Jelle Wesseling;Claudette E. Loo

  • Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study

    Lotte E. Elshof;Konstantinos Tryfonidis;Leen Slaets;A. Elise van Leeuwen-Stok

  • The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study.

    Stella Mook;Marjanka K. Schmidt;Giuseppe Viale;Giuseppe Viale;Giancarlo Pruneri;Giancarlo Pruneri

  • Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37 298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials

    Richard Gray;Rosie Bradley;Jeremy Braybrooke;Zulian Liu

Frequent Co-Authors

Jelle Wesseling
Jelle Wesseling Leiden University Medical Center
Laura J. van't Veer
Laura J. van't Veer University of California, San Francisco
Fatima Cardoso
Fatima Cardoso Champalimaud Foundation
Omgo E. Nieweg
Omgo E. Nieweg Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Marjanka K. Schmidt
Marjanka K. Schmidt Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
Giuseppe Viale
Giuseppe Viale University of Milan
Sjoerd Rodenhuis
Sjoerd Rodenhuis Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
Flora E. van Leeuwen
Flora E. van Leeuwen Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
Harry Bartelink
Harry Bartelink Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
Hiltrud Brauch
Hiltrud Brauch German Cancer Research Center

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 alternative routes in healthcare is increasingly popular for those looking to fast-track their careers in medicine or related fields. Many students consider online direct entry msn programs for non-nurses as a pathway to advanced nursing roles, even for those without a traditional nursing background.

Admission requirements can be a barrier for some, but options like the easiest rn program to get into help open doors for aspiring nurses who may not have top academic scores or healthcare experience.

For those interested in administrative healthcare roles, options such as online medical coding classes with financial aid offer flexibility and support while preparing graduates for in-demand positions.

Some programs are also minimizing standardized test barriers. For example, lpn to rn programs without teas test provide a seamless path for licensed practical nurses to advance their credentials.

With so many accessible online programs, students can find a career pathway that matches their interests and needs—often with greater flexibility, reduced prerequisites, and support options like financial aid.

Best Scientists Citing Emiel J. Th. Rutgers

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles