World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
81
Citations
27398
World Ranking
16515
National Ranking
860

Frank M. Bengel 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 Frank M. Bengel 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: 626 publications — 74th percentile

74% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Frank M. Bengel 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 Frank M. Bengel 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.

Overview

Frank M. Bengel is affiliated with Hannover Medical School in Germany and has a substantial publication record primarily in the field of medicine, with a focus on radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging. Their work spans multiple subfields, including cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, oncology, and surgery.

Their research contributes to several main topics within medical imaging and diagnostics. These include:

  • Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Peptidase Inhibition and Analysis
  • Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
  • Cardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
  • Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair

Frank M. Bengel has published in a range of frequent venues, with notable contributions in:

  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • Nuklearmedizin - NuclearMedicine
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
  • Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Among their recent papers are the following:

  • "Left ventricular remodelling post-myocardial infarction: pathophysiology, imaging, and novel therapies," published in 2022 in European Heart Journal
  • "Incidental Findings Suggestive of COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing Nuclear Medicine Procedures in a High-Prevalence Region," published in 2020 in Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • "Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia," published in 2020 in Nature Reviews Cardiology
  • "Expert consensus on the monitoring of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy," published in 2021 in European Journal of Heart Failure
  • "The Future of Nuclear Medicine, Molecular Imaging, and Theranostics," published in 2020 in Journal of Nuclear Medicine

The scientist frequently collaborates with several co-authors in their research. These include:

  • Tobias L. Roß
  • Thorsten Derlin
  • James T. Thackeray
  • Johanna Diekmann
  • Rudolf A. Werner

Best Publications

  • Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

    Adam Torbicki;Arnaud Perrier;Stavros Konstantinides;Giancarlo Agnelli

  • Assessment of Myocardial Viability With Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Comparison With Positron Emission Tomography

    Christoph Klein;Stephan G. Nekolla;Frank M. Bengel;Mitsuru Momose

  • Cardiac computed tomography: Indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements - Report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology

    Stephen Schroeder;Stephan Achenbach;Frank Bengel;Christof Burgstahler

  • Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making.

    K. Lance Gould;Nils P. Johnson;Timothy M. Bateman;Rob S. Beanlands

  • EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology

    B. Hesse;K. Tägil;A. Cuocolo;C. Anagnostopoulos

  • Effect of sympathetic reinnervation on cardiac performance after heart transplantation.

    Frank M. Bengel;Peter Ueberfuhr;Nina Schiepel;Stephan G. Nekolla

  • Serial Assessment of Sympathetic Reinnervation After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation A Longitudinal Study Using PET and C-11 Hydroxyephedrine

    Frank M. Bengel;Peter Ueberfuhr;Sibylle I. Ziegler;Stephan Nekolla

  • EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision

    Hein J. Verberne;Wanda Acampa;Constantinos Anagnostopoulos;Jim Ballinger

  • Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography

    Frank M. Bengel;Takahiro Higuchi;Mehrbod S. Javadi;Riikka Lautamäki

  • Noninvasive quantification and optimization of acute cell retention by in vivo positron emission tomography after intramyocardial cardiac-derived stem cell delivery.

    John Terrovitis;Riikka Lautamäki;Michael Bonios;James Fox

  • Myocardial Inflammation Predicts Remodeling and Neuroinflammation After Myocardial Infarction.

    James T. Thackeray;Henri C. Hupe;Yong Wang;Jens P. Bankstahl

  • Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with 320-row detector computed tomography accurately detects myocardial ischemia in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease

    Richard T. George;Armin Arbab-Zadeh;Julie M. Miller;Andrea L. Vavere

  • Ectopic expression of the sodium-iodide symporter enables imaging of transplanted cardiac stem cells in vivo by single-photon emission computed tomography or positron emission tomography.

    John Terrovitis;Keng Fai Kwok;Riikka Lautamäki;James M. Engles

  • Molecular Imaging of the Chemokine Receptor CXCR4 After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

    James T. Thackeray;Thorsten Derlin;Arash Haghikia;L. Christian Napp

  • Positron Emission Tomography-Guided Therapy of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (PETAL): A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Trial.

    Ulrich Dührsen;Stefan Müller;Bernd Hertenstein;Henrike Thomssen

  • Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC)

    Albert Flotats;Juhani Knuuti;Matthias Gutberlet;Claudio Marcassa

  • Prediction of Short-Term Cardiovascular Events Using Quantification of Global Myocardial Flow Reserve in Patients Referred for Clinical 82Rb PET Perfusion Imaging

    Kenji Fukushima;Mehrbod S. Javadi;Takahiro Higuchi;Riikka Lautamäki

  • Role of Imaging in Cardiac Stem Cell Therapy

    Saskia L.M.A. Beeres;Frank M. Bengel;Jozef Bartunek;Douwe E. Atsma

  • Extent of Cardiac Sympathetic Neuronal Damage Is Determined by the Area of Ischemia in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

    Ichiro Matsunari;Ullrich Schricke;Frank M. Bengel;Hans Ullrich Haase

  • Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

    Adam Torbicki;Arnaud Perrier;Stavros Konstantinides;Giancarlo Agnelli

Frequent Co-Authors

Markus Schwaiger
Markus Schwaiger Technical University of Munich
Stephan G. Nekolla
Stephan G. Nekolla Technical University of Munich
Johann Bauersachs
Johann Bauersachs Hannover Medical School
Benjamin M. W. Tsui
Benjamin M. W. Tsui Johns Hopkins University
Hans-Jürgen Wester
Hans-Jürgen Wester Technical University of Munich
Kai C. Wollert
Kai C. Wollert Hannover Medical School
Juhani Knuuti
Juhani Knuuti Turku University Hospital
Richard L. Wahl
Richard L. Wahl Washington University in St. Louis
Martin G. Pomper
Martin G. Pomper Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Eduardo Marbán
Eduardo Marbán Cedars-Sinai Medical 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

Interested in healthcare careers beyond traditional medical school? There are several flexible online degrees and career pathways to explore in the USA. For aspiring nurses, direct entry nursing programs offer accessible routes—with some programs providing accelerated options for those with prior degrees.

For those interested in administration, an online healthcare management degree can quickly prepare you for leadership roles in healthcare organizations. If you are looking for affordable and accessible study options, many medical billing and coding schools that accept financial aid allow you to enter the workforce without a large upfront cost.

Additionally, students seeking practical nursing credentials without the stress of difficult exams can look into lpn program no entrance exam options. These pathways provide more accessible entry points into the medical field, broadening opportunities for diverse candidates.

Best Scientists Citing Frank M. Bengel

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles