World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 85 14794 7478 291 19498

Hugh F. Biller publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Hugh F. Biller between 1960 and 2016, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Hugh F. Biller published across 57 years, from 1960 to 2016, averaging 5.1 papers a year. Output peaked at 18 publications in 1981. 3 of the 292 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1960 to 2016. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 18. Peak 18 publications in 1981. 1960: 1 publication 1961: 0 publications 1962: 0 publications 1963: 0 publications 1964: 0 publications 1965: 0 publications 1966: 0 publications 1967: 0 publications 1968: 0 publications 1969: 4 publications 1970: 8 publications 1971: 8 publications 1972: 8 publications 1973: 3 publications 1974: 4 publications 1975: 3 publications 1976: 0 publications 1977: 5 publications 1978: 2 publications 1979: 6 publications 1980: 6 publications 1981: 18 publications 1982: 13 publications 1983: 10 publications 1984: 8 publications 1985: 14 publications 1986: 16 publications 1987: 16 publications 1988: 14 publications 1989: 18 publications 1990: 12 publications 1991: 16 publications 1992: 11 publications 1993: 10 publications 1994: 16 publications 1995: 14 publications 1996: 7 publications 1997: 3 publications 1998: 5 publications 1999: 5 publications 2000: 2 publications 2001: 2 publications 2002: 0 publications 2003: 1 publication 2004: 0 publications 2005: 0 publications 2006: 0 publications 2007: 0 publications 2008: 0 publications 2009: 0 publications 2010: 0 publications 2011: 0 publications 2012: 0 publications 2013: 0 publications 2014: 0 publications 2015: 2 publications 2016: 1 publication
1960 2016

292 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Hugh F. Biller: publications per year, 1960 to 2016
Year Publications
1960 1
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 0
1967 0
1968 0
1969 4
1970 8
1971 8
1972 8
1973 3
1974 4
1975 3
1976 0
1977 5
1978 2
1979 6
1980 6
1981 18
1982 13
1983 10
1984 8
1985 14
1986 16
1987 16
1988 14
1989 18
1990 12
1991 16
1992 11
1993 10
1994 16
1995 14
1996 7
1997 3
1998 5
1999 5
2000 2
2001 2
2002 0
2003 1
2004 0
2005 0
2006 0
2007 0
2008 0
2009 0
2010 0
2011 0
2012 0
2013 0
2014 0
2015 2
2016 1
Total 292
Download as CSV

Hugh F. Biller 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 Hugh F. Biller sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 281–300 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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: 610 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
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 291 publications — 15th percentile

15% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768 291
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Hugh F. Biller 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 Hugh F. Biller sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 84–85 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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: 399 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
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 85 D-Index — 29th percentile

29% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003 85
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Hugh F. Biller was affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital in the United States. Their career was primarily connected to this institution, where they contributed to the academic and clinical environment through their research activities.

Although there is limited specific information about their research publications, coauthors, or detailed fields of study, the available data shows no records of published papers, book publications, or awards attributed to this scientist.

Further details about the topics and subfields they focused on within their discipline are not present in the records. Likewise, there are no frequent publication venues or coauthors mentioned, which suggests that public bibliographic data is either scarce or not documented for this individual.

Given the absence of detailed publication records and documented frequent research collaborations, the scope of their academic output and scientific contributions cannot be elaborated upon in this profile.

Hugh F. Biller is recorded as deceased. Therefore, all descriptions relating to their career and contributions refer to their past work and affiliations. This profile aims to present verifiable factual information respecting the available data.

Best Publications

  • Microvascular Free Flaps in Head and Neck Reconstruction Report of 200 Cases and Review of Complications

    Mark L. Urken;Hubert Weinberg;Daniel Buchbinder;Juan F. Moscoso

  • Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite flaps: report of 210 cases.

    Mark L. Urken;Daniel Buchbinder;Peter D. Costantino;Uttam Sinha

  • Oromandibular Reconstruction Using Microvascular Composite Free Flaps: Report of 71 Cases and a New Classification Scheme for Bony, Soft-Tissue, and Neurologic Defects

    Mark L. Urken;Hubert Weinberg;Carlin Vickery;Daniel Buchbinder

  • Functional evaluation following microvascular oromandibular reconstruction of the oral cancer patient: A comparative study of reconstructed and nonreconstructed patients

    Mark L. Urken;Daniel Buchbinder;Hubert Weinberg;Carlin Vickery

  • Inverted papilloma: A report of 112 cases

    William Lawson;Bryan T. Ho;Christopher M. Shaari;Hugh F. Biller

  • PATIENT SURVIVAL FACTORS IN PARANASAL SINUS MUCORMYCOSIS

    Andrew Blitzer;William Lawson;Bert R. Meyers;Hugh F. Biller

  • An analysis of 133 pectoralis major myocutaneous flaps.

    Se-Min Baek;William Lawson;Hugh F. Biller

  • Sinonasal tumors and inflammatory tissues: differentiation with MR imaging.

    P M Som;M D Shapiro;H F Biller;C Sasaki

  • A Systematic Approach to Functional Reconstruction of the Oral Cavity Following Partial and Total Glossectomy

    Mark L. Urken;Juan F. Moscoso;William Lawson;Hugh F. Biller

  • Tumors of the parapharyngeal space: preoperative evaluation, diagnosis and surgical approaches.

    Peter M. Som;Hugh F. Biller;William Lawson

  • Treatment outcomes in the management of inverted papilloma: an analysis of 160 cases.

    William Lawson;Matthew R. Kaufman;Hugh F. Biller

  • Vascularized bone flaps in oromandibular reconstruction. A comparative anatomic study of bone stock from various donor sites to assess suitability for enosseous dental implants.

    Juan F. Moscoso;Jeffrey Keller;Eric Genden;Hubert Weinberg

  • The internal oblique-iliac crest osseomyocutaneous free flap in oromandibular reconstruction. Report of 20 cases.

    Mark L. Urken;Carlin Vickery;Hubert Weinberg;Daniel Buchbinder

  • Primary Placement of Osseointegrated Implants in Microvascular Mandibular Reconstruction

    Mark L. Urken;Daniel Buchbinder;Hubert Weinberg;Carlin Vickery

  • The innervation of the human larynx.

    Ira Sanders;Bei-Lian Wu;Liancai Mu;Youzhu Li

  • The neurofasciocutaneous radial forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: a preliminary report.

    Mark L. Urken;Hubert Weinberg;Carlin Vickery;Hugh F. Biller

  • Esthesioneuroblastoma: surgical treatment without radiation.

    Hugh F. Biller;William Lawson;Ved P. Sachdev;Peter Som

  • Quantifying the spread of botulinum toxin through muscle fascia.

    Christopher M. Shaari;Elaina George;Bei-Lian Wu;Hugh F. Biller

  • Atlas of Regional and Free Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction

    Mark L. Urken;Mack L Cheney;Michael J. Sullivan;Hugh F. Biller

  • The pectoralis major myocutaneous island flap for reconstruction of the head and neck.

    Se‐Min Baek;Hugh F. Biller;Yosef P. Krespi;William Lawson

Frequent Co-Authors

William Lawson
William Lawson Stony Brook University
Peter M. Som
Peter M. Som Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
James F. Holland
James F. Holland Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Paul J. Catalano
Paul J. Catalano Harvard University
Richard M. Rosenfeld
Richard M. Rosenfeld SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Robert A. Zimmerman
Robert A. Zimmerman Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
William P. Dillon
William P. Dillon University of California, San Francisco
Eugene N. Myers
Eugene N. Myers University of Pittsburgh
Donald A. Fischman
Donald A. Fischman Cornell University
William T. Shearer
William T. Shearer Baylor College of Medicine

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

Aspiring medical professionals often explore alternative or complementary online degrees to broaden their career options. For those interested in advancing their nursing expertise and leadership, a phd nursing education online offers flexibility and affordability. This path is ideal for nurses seeking roles in academia or research.

If you're an RN looking to advance your credentials, there are several cheap rn to bsn programs available online. These programs are designed to be cost-effective and accessible, allowing you to earn a higher degree without putting your career on hold.

For those coming from non-nursing backgrounds but want to quickly start a nursing career, direct entry msn programs provide an accelerated path to a Master’s in Nursing. These programs combine foundational nursing knowledge with advanced practice skills, enabling faster career transitions.

If admissions standards are a concern, look into nursing programs with high acceptance rates. These options can help more students begin their journeys without facing highly competitive admissions.

Best Scientists Citing Hugh F. Biller

Recently Published Articles