World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Galen S. Wagner

Galen S. Wagner

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
91
Citations
45664
World Ranking
11540
National Ranking
5918

Galen S. Wagner 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 Galen S. Wagner 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: 692 publications — 80th percentile

80% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Galen S. Wagner 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 Galen S. Wagner 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: 91 D-Index — 43rd percentile

43% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Galen S. Wagner was affiliated with Duke University in the United States. Their professional career was linked to this institution, where they contributed to academic research and scholarship.

Throughout their career, Wagner published a number of scientific papers. However, no specific titles or details about these publications are available in the provided data. The absence of recorded frequent co-authors, main fields of study, subfields, or main research topics suggests that such detailed research information is not documented here.

There is no information regarding participation in particular publication venues or book publishing by Wagner. Likewise, records of awards or honors received were not found in the provided data.

Due to the limited data about research themes or scholarly contributions, a more detailed account of Wagner's scientific expertise and intellectual pursuits cannot be constructed from the available information. However, the association with a major research university like Duke University implies involvement in a research environment that fosters academic advancement.

Galen S. Wagner is noted as deceased. The profile of their academic contributions is therefore presented in the past tense to reflect this status.

Best Publications

  • Myocardial infarction redefined--a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction.

    Elliott Antman;Jean-Pierre Bassand;Werner Klein;Magnus Ohman

  • Myocardial infarction redefined - A consensus document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction

    J. S. Alpert;E. Antman;F. Apple;P. W. Armstrong

  • Cardiac Troponin T Levels for Risk Stratification in Acute Myocardial Ischemia

    Ohman Em;Armstrong Pw;Christenson Rh;Granger Cb

  • Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram: Part I: The Electrocardiogram and Its Technology A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology

    Paul Kligfield;Leonard S. Gettes;James J. Bailey;Rory Childers

  • Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Evolving Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle-Branch Block

    Elena B. Sgarbossa;Sergio L. Pinski;Alejandro Barbagelata;Donald A. Underwood

  • Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram

    Paul Kligfield;Leonard S. Gettes;James J. Bailey;Rory Childers

  • Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score.

    Robert M. Califf;Harry R. Phillips;Michael C. Hindman;Daniel B. Mark

  • Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size

    Steven F. Roark;Raymond E. Ideker;Galen S. Wagner;Daniel R. Alonso

  • Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. I. Specificity and observer agreement.

    G S Wagner;C J Freye;S T Palmeri;S F Roark

  • Unstable angina pectoris: National cooperative study group to compare surgical and medical therapy: II. In-Hospital experience and initial follow-up results in patients with one, two and three vessel disease

    R.O. Russell;R.E. Moraski;N. Kouchoukos;R. Karp

  • AHA/ACCF/HRS Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram Part V: Electrocardiogram Changes Associated With Cardiac Chamber Hypertrophy: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society: Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology

    E. William Hancock;Barbara J. Deal;David M. Mirvis;Peter Okin

  • The clinical significance of bundle branch block complicating acute myocardial infarction. 1. Clinical characteristics, hospital mortality, and one-year follow-up.

    M. C. Hindman;G. S. Wagner;M. JaRo;James M Atkins

  • Correlation of postmortem anatomic findings with electrocardiographic changes in patients with myocardial infarction: retrospective study of patients with typical anterior and posterior infarcts

    R M Savage;G S Wagner;R E Ideker;S A Podolsky

  • Use of initial ST-segment deviation for prediction of final electrocardiographic size of acute myocardial infarcts☆

    Harry R. Aldrich;Harry R. Aldrich;Nancy B. Wagner;Nancy B. Wagner;Jane Boswick;Jane Boswick;Anne T. Corsa;Anne T. Corsa

  • Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. II. Correlation with quantitative anatomic findings for anterior infarcts.

    Raymond E. Ideker;Galen S. Wagner;Wayne K. Ruth;Daniel R. Alonso

  • A QRS scoring system for assessing left ventricular function after myocardial infarction.

    Sebastian T. Palmeri;David G. Harrison;Frederick R. Cobb;Kenneth G. Morris

  • AHA/ACCF/HRS Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram. Part VI: Acute Ischemia/Infarction A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society

    Galen S. Wagner;Peter Macfarlane;Hein Wellens;Mark Josephson

  • The Selvester QRS Scoring System for Estimating Myocardial Infarct Size: The Development and Application of the System

    Ronald H. Selvester;Galen S. Wagner;Nancy B. Hindman

  • Prognostic significance of the initial electrocardiogram in patients with acute myocardial infarction

    William R. Hathaway;Eric D. Peterson;Galen S. Wagner;Christopher B. Granger

  • Identification and Treatment of Low-Risk Patients after Acute Myocardial Infarction and Coronary-Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

    Robert F. DeBusk;C. Gunnar Blomqvist;Nicholas T. Kouchoukos;Russell V. Luepker

Frequent Co-Authors

Charles Maynard
Charles Maynard University of Washington
Robert M. Califf
Robert M. Califf Duke University
Christopher B. Granger
Christopher B. Granger Duke University
Paul W. Armstrong
Paul W. Armstrong University of Alberta
Mitchell W. Krucoff
Mitchell W. Krucoff Duke University
Kerry L. Lee
Kerry L. Lee Duke University
Shaun G. Goodman
Shaun G. Goodman University of Toronto
Raymond E. Ideker
Raymond E. Ideker University of Alabama at Birmingham
Leif Sörnmo
Leif Sörnmo Lund 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 online degree options can open new paths in healthcare beyond just traditional medical school. If you’re already a registered nurse, adn to fnp bridge programs offer a fast-track way to advance your nursing career and become a Family Nurse Practitioner without starting from scratch. Nursing professionals may also consider rn to bsn online programs without clinicals, which provide flexible opportunities to gain a Bachelor of Science in Nursing entirely online, often eliminating the need for in-person clinical requirements.

For those interested in health beyond clinical practice, academic paths like a nutrition degree online can lead to roles in dietetics, wellness coaching, or food science. Alternatively, if you’re drawn to the leadership side of healthcare, exploring cahme accredited online mha programs can equip you to excel in hospital administration or healthcare management.

Each online program offers flexible learning suitable for busy schedules, making it easier to gain advanced qualifications or shift careers in the growing field of healthcare.

Best Scientists Citing Galen S. Wagner

Recently Published Articles