World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
102
Citations
38765
World Ranking
7656
National Ranking
3987

Gautam Borthakur 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 Gautam Borthakur 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: 1,576 publications — 99th percentile

99% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Gautam Borthakur 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 Gautam Borthakur 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: 102 D-Index — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Gautam Borthakur is affiliated with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with a specialization in hematology, genetics, molecular biology, public health, environmental and occupational health, and oncology.

The main topics of their work include:

  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
  • Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
  • Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research
  • Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
  • Protein Degradation and Inhibitors

Frequent co-authors in their body of work are:

  • Tapan M. Kadia
  • Farhad Ravandi
  • Hagop M. Kantarjian
  • Courtney D. DiNardo
  • Guillermo Garcia-Manero

Borthakur has contributed to numerous scientific publications, appearing often in journals such as Blood, Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma & Leukemia, American Journal of Hematology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Cancer.

Notable recent papers include:

  • Acute myeloid leukemia: current progress and future directions, 2021, Blood Cancer Journal
  • Advances in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: New Drugs and New Challenges, 2020, Cancer Discovery
  • Venetoclax Combined With FLAG-IDA Induction and Consolidation in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia, 2021, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • 10-day decitabine with venetoclax for newly diagnosed intensive chemotherapy ineligible, and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a single-centre, phase 2 trial, 2020, The Lancet Haematology
  • De novo acute myeloid leukemia: A population-based study of outcome in the United States based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 1980 to 2017, 2021, Cancer

Best Publications

  • Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

    Daniel J. Klionsky;Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz;Sara Abdelfatah;Mahmoud Abdellatif

  • Selective BCL-2 Inhibition by ABT-199 Causes On-Target Cell Death in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

    Rongqing Pan;Leah J. Hogdal;Juliana M. Benito;Donna Bucci

  • Acute myeloid leukemia: current progress and future directions.

    Hagop Kantarjian;Tapan Kadia;Courtney DiNardo;Naval Daver

  • Ibrutinib and venetoclax for first-line treatment of CLL

    Nitin Jain;Michael Keating;Philip Thompson;Alessandra Ferrajoli

  • Pegylated Interferon Alfa-2a Yields High Rates of Hematologic and Molecular Response in Patients With Advanced Essential Thrombocythemia and Polycythemia Vera

    Alfonso Quintás-Cardama;Hagop Kantarjian;Taghi Manshouri;Rajyalakshmi Luthra

  • Phase I/II Study of Combination Therapy With Sorafenib, Idarubicin, and Cytarabine in Younger Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

    Farhad Ravandi;Jorge E Cortes;Daniel Jones;Stefan H Faderl

  • Phase I Study of Quizartinib Administered Daily to Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia Irrespective of FMS-Like Tyrosine Kinase 3–Internal Tandem Duplication Status

    Jorge E. Cortes;Hagop Kantarjian;James M. Foran;Darejan Ghirdaladze

  • Improved survival in chronic myeloid leukemia since the introduction of imatinib therapy: a single-institution historical experience

    Hagop M. Kantarjian;Susan OBrien;Elias Joseph Jabbour;Guillermo Garcia-Manero

  • Phase 2 study of azacytidine plus sorafenib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT-3 internal tandem duplication mutation

    Farhad Ravandi;Mona Lisa Alattar;Michael R. Grunwald;Michelle A. Rudek

  • Prediction of Early Death After Induction Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Pretreatment Risk Scores: A Novel Paradigm for Treatment Assignment

    Roland B. Walter;Roland B. Walter;Megan Othus;Gautam Borthakur;Farhad Ravandi

  • First report of phase 2 study of dasatinib with hyper-CVAD for the frontline treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia

    Farhad Ravandi;Susan O'Brien;Deborah Thomas;Stefan Faderl

  • Mitochondrial ClpP-Mediated Proteolysis Induces Selective Cancer Cell Lethality

    Jo Ishizawa;Sarah F. Zarabi;Sarah F. Zarabi;R. Eric Davis;Ondrej Halgas;Ondrej Halgas

  • Early T-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ETP-ALL/LBL) in adolescents and adults: a high-risk subtype.

    Nitin Jain;Audrey V. Lamb;Susan O’Brien;Farhad Ravandi

  • Results of Dasatinib Therapy in Patients With Early Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

    Jorge E. Cortes;Dan Jones;Susan O'Brien;Elias Jabbour

  • The haematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index score is predictive of early death and survival in patients over 60 years of age receiving induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia

    Francis J. Giles;Francis J. Giles;Gautam Borthakur;Farhad Ravandi;Stefan Faderl

  • Nilotinib As Front-Line Treatment for Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Early Chronic Phase

    Jorge E. Cortes;Dan Jones;Susan O'Brien;Elias Jabbour

  • Relative survival in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia in the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor era: analysis of patient data from six prospective clinical trials.

    Koji Sasaki;Koji Sasaki;Sara S Strom;Susan O'Brien;Elias Jabbour

  • Phase 2 study of the JAK kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with refractory leukemias, including postmyeloproliferative neoplasm acute myeloid leukemia

    Alireza Eghtedar;Srdan Verstovsek;Zeev Estrov;Jan Burger

  • A randomized study of clofarabine versus clofarabine plus low-dose cytarabine as front-line therapy for patients aged 60 years and older with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome

    Stefan Faderl;Farhad Ravandi;Xuelin Huang;Guillermo Garcia-Manero

  • Prevention and management of asparaginase/pegasparaginase-associated toxicities in adults and older adolescents: recommendations of an expert panel

    Wendy Stock;Dan Douer;Daniel J. Deangelo;Martha Arellano

Frequent Co-Authors

Hagop M. Kantarjian
Hagop M. Kantarjian The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Jorge E. Cortes
Jorge E. Cortes Augusta University
Farhad Ravandi
Farhad Ravandi The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Guillermo Garcia-Manero
Guillermo Garcia-Manero The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Elias Jabbour
Elias Jabbour The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Naval Daver
Naval Daver The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Marina Konopleva
Marina Konopleva The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Sherry Pierce
Sherry Pierce The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Susan O'Brien
Susan O'Brien University of California, Irvine
Zeev Estrov
Zeev Estrov The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer 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 a future in Medicine often opens the door to various related career paths within healthcare. For those interested in administration, pursuing the cheapest online healthcare administration degree is a budget-friendly way to enter management and leadership roles in medical settings. If you’re seeking to advance even further, the cheapest mha online programs offer a flexible pathway to a graduate degree, preparing graduates for upper-level positions in hospitals, clinics, and other organizations.

For those aiming for clinical leadership, Doctor of Nursing Practice graduates are in high demand. You can review the best dnp programs online for comprehensive training in advanced practice nursing. Alternatively, if pharmaceutical care interests you, there are fully accredited pharm d online programs suitable for working professionals.

Exploring these affordable online degrees can expand your skillset, enhance your career potential, and make you more competitive in the rapidly evolving field of healthcare.

Best Scientists Citing Gautam Borthakur

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles