World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Henrica C.W. de Vet

Henrica C.W. de Vet

Award Badge
Best Female Scientists
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Best Female Scientists

D-Index
131
Citations
115008
World Ranking
332
National Ranking
15

Medicine

D-Index
134
Citations
125266
World Ranking
2092
National Ranking
77

Henrica C.W. de Vet 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 Henrica C.W. de Vet 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: 599 publications — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Henrica C.W. de Vet 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 Henrica C.W. de Vet 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: 134 D-Index — 90th percentile

90% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Best Female Scientists Award

Overview

Henrica C.W. de Vet is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their research primarily focuses on the field of Medicine, with notable work in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, General Health Professions, and Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty.

Their main topics of study cover a broad spectrum of medical and clinical areas including:

  • Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • CNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment

Henrica C.W. de Vet has contributed to several recent papers, including:

  • "COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study", 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology
  • "18F-FDG PET baseline radiomics features improve the prediction of treatment outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma", 2021, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • "Proposed New Dynamic Prognostic Index for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: International Metabolic Prognostic Index", 2022, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Automated Segmentation of Baseline Metabolic Total Tumor Burden in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Which Method Is Most Successful? A Study on Behalf of the PETRA Consortium", 2020, Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • "Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Responsiveness, the longitudinal aspect of validity", 2021, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Their frequent co-authors include:

  • Ronald Boellaard
  • Otto S. Hoekstra
  • Josée M. Zijlstra
  • Jakoba J. Eertink
  • Gerben J.C. Zwezerijnen

Henrica C.W. de Vet commonly publishes in the following venues:

  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • Blood
  • PsycTESTS Dataset
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Best Publications

  • Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

    P M Bossuyt;J B Reitsma;D E Bruns;C A Gatsonis

  • Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires

    Caroline B. Terwee;Sandra D.M. Bot;Michael R. de Boer;Daniëlle A.W.M. van der Windt

  • STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

    Patrick M Bossuyt;Johannes B Reitsma;David E Bruns;Constantine A Gatsonis

  • Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

    Patrick M Bossuyt;Johannes B Reitsma;David E Bruns;Constantine A Gatsonis

  • The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration

    Patrick M. Bossuyt;Johannes B. Reitsma;David E. Bruns;Constantine A. Gatsonis

  • The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

    Patrick M. Bossuyt;Johannes B. Reitsma;David E. Bruns;Constantine A. Gatsonis

  • COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

    C. A.C. Prinsen;L. B. Mokkink;L. M. Bouter;J. Alonso

  • Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change.

    Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo;Rick A. Deyo;P Stratford;Gordon Waddell

  • Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

    Caroline B. Terwee;Lidwine B. Mokkink;Dirk L. Knol;Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

  • When to use agreement versus reliability measures

    Henrica C.W. de Vet;Caroline B. Terwee;Dirk L. Knol;Lex M. Bouter

  • COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

    L. B. Mokkink;H. C. W. de Vet;C. A. C. Prinsen;D. L. Patrick

  • STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

    Jérémie F Cohen;Jérémie F Cohen;Daniël A Korevaar;Douglas G Altman;David E Bruns

  • The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

    Lidwine B Mokkink;Caroline B Terwee;Dirk L Knol;Paul W Stratford

  • COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

    C. B. Terwee;C. A.C. Prinsen;A. Chiarotto;M. J. Westerman

  • Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy

    Marius A. Kemler;Gerard A.M. Barendse;Maarten van Kleef;Henrica C.W. de Vet

  • Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

    Walter L. J. M. Devillé;Frank Buntinx;Lex M Bouter;Victor M. Montori

  • Clinically important outcomes in low back pain.

    Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo;Henrica C.W. de Vet

  • STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. Translation to Russian

    Jérémie F. Cohen;F Cohen Jérémie;Daniël A. Korevaar;A Korevaar Daniël

Frequent Co-Authors

Lex M. Bouter
Lex M. Bouter Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Dirk L. Knol
Dirk L. Knol VU University Medical Center
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Caroline B. Terwee
Caroline B. Terwee VU University Medical Center
Maurits W. van Tulder
Maurits W. van Tulder Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Willem van Mechelen
Willem van Mechelen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Bart W. Koes
Bart W. Koes Erasmus University Rotterdam
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt University of Amsterdam
Les Irwig
Les Irwig University of Sydney
Johannes B. Reitsma
Johannes B. Reitsma Utrecht 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 a career in medicine often means considering complementary or alternative pathways beyond an MD degree. Online degrees in related health fields are increasingly popular for their flexibility and career advancement opportunities.

For those interested in the management side of healthcare, a healthcare administration degree online accredited can open doors to leadership roles without stepping away from your current job. These programs focus on administration, policy, and health systems management.

Registered nurses looking to advance their practice may benefit from dedicated rn to np programs. These bridge programs allow nurses to earn a master’s degree and qualify as nurse practitioners, with many options delivered online for working professionals.

Nutrition is another vital area in healthcare, and earning an online dietitian degree can lead to rewarding roles as a dietitian or nutritionist. These programs are ideal for students interested in food science and preventative medicine.

Aspiring healthcare leaders should consider cahme accredited online healthcare administration programs for a comprehensive education recognized for quality. Accreditation ensures the program meets high standards, often required for higher-level positions in the field.

Best Scientists Citing Henrica C.W. de Vet

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles