World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
James A. Hanley

James A. Hanley

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 97 9058 8501 354 336 348 71423

James A. Hanley publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by James A. Hanley between 1975 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. James A. Hanley published across 52 years, from 1975 to 2026, averaging 7.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 23 publications in 2010. 9 of the 391 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1975 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 23. Peak 23 publications in 2010. 1975: 1 publication 1976: 3 publications 1977: 3 publications 1978: 2 publications 1979: 3 publications 1980: 5 publications 1981: 4 publications 1982: 3 publications 1983: 10 publications 1984: 7 publications 1985: 7 publications 1986: 6 publications 1987: 8 publications 1988: 6 publications 1989: 3 publications 1990: 0 publications 1991: 3 publications 1992: 3 publications 1993: 3 publications 1994: 12 publications 1995: 4 publications 1996: 7 publications 1997: 8 publications 1998: 9 publications 1999: 10 publications 2000: 8 publications 2001: 10 publications 2002: 9 publications 2003: 15 publications 2004: 12 publications 2005: 21 publications 2006: 17 publications 2007: 12 publications 2008: 13 publications 2009: 18 publications 2010: 23 publications 2011: 17 publications 2012: 8 publications 2013: 8 publications 2014: 11 publications 2015: 5 publications 2016: 3 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 7 publications 2019: 4 publications 2020: 2 publications 2021: 6 publications 2022: 3 publications 2023: 4 publications 2024: 9 publications 2025: 8 publications 2026: 1 publication
1975 2026

391 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
James A. Hanley: publications per year, 1975 to 2026
Year Publications
1975 1
1976 3
1977 3
1978 2
1979 3
1980 5
1981 4
1982 3
1983 10
1984 7
1985 7
1986 6
1987 8
1988 6
1989 3
1990 0
1991 3
1992 3
1993 3
1994 12
1995 4
1996 7
1997 8
1998 9
1999 10
2000 8
2001 10
2002 9
2003 15
2004 12
2005 21
2006 17
2007 12
2008 13
2009 18
2010 23
2011 17
2012 8
2013 8
2014 11
2015 5
2016 3
2017 7
2018 7
2019 4
2020 2
2021 6
2022 3
2023 4
2024 9
2025 8
2026 1
Total 391
Download as CSV

James A. Hanley 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 James A. Hanley 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, 341–360 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: 348 publications — 27th percentile

27% 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
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922 348
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

James A. Hanley 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 James A. Hanley 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, 96–97 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: 97 D-Index — 55th percentile

55% 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
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779 97
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

James A. Hanley is affiliated with McGill University in Canada and conducts research primarily in the field of Medicine. Their work spans a range of specialized subfields, including Statistics and Probability, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Oncology, General Health Professions, and Demography.

The researcher's main topics of focus include Statistical Methods and Inference, Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference, Advanced Causal Inference Techniques, Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, Global Health Care Issues, Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management, and Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, and Quality of Life.

James A. Hanley has published in several academic venues, with frequent contributions to:

  • The American Statistician
  • European Journal of Epidemiology
  • CHANCE
  • Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education
  • Significance

Among recent papers authored or co-authored by Hanley are:

  • "LASSO type penalized spline regression for binary data," 2021, BMC Medical Research Methodology
  • "Inference for covariate-adjusted time-dependent prognostic accuracy measures," 2023, Statistics in Medicine
  • "casebase: An Alternative Framework for Survival Analysis and Comparison of Event Rates," 2022, The R Journal
  • "The "Poisson" Distribution: History, Reenactments, Adaptations," 2022, The American Statistician
  • "The (Im)precision of Life Expectancy Numbers," 2022, American Journal of Public Health

Collaborations are evident with several frequent co-authors including:

  • Sahir Bhatnagar
  • Rebecca Fuhrer
  • Rajib Dey
  • Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri
  • Maxime Turgeon

Best Publications

  • The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

    James A. Hanley;Barbara J. McNeil

  • A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

    J A Hanley;B J McNeil

  • Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data Using Generalized Estimating Equations: An Orientation

    James A. Hanley;Abdissa Negassa;Michael D. De B. Edwardes;Janet E. Forrester

  • Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer.

    Marie-Hélène Mayrand;Eliane Duarte-Franco;Isabel Rodrigues;Stephen D. Walter

  • 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

    Peter C. Albertsen;James A. Hanley;Judith Fine

  • Adverse Events Associated With Prescription Drug Cost-Sharing Among Poor and Elderly Persons

    Robyn Tamblyn;Rejean Laprise;James A. Hanley;Michael Abrahamowicz

  • Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes.

    Linda E Lévesque;James A Hanley;Abbas Kezouh;Samy Suissa

  • Competing Risk Analysis of Men Aged 55 to 74 Years at Diagnosis Managed Conservatively for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

    P.C. Albertsen;J.A. Hanley;D.F. Gleason;M.J. Barry

  • Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art.

    Hanley Ja

  • Streptozocin Alone Compared with Streptozocin plus Fluorouracil in the Treatment of Advanced Islet-Cell Carcinoma

    Charles G. Moertel;James A. Hanley;Lewis A. Johnson

  • Statistical Approaches to the Analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves

    Barbara J. McNeil;James A. Hanley

  • The psychological and physical health of family members caring for an elderly person with dementia.

    Mona Baumgarten;Renaldo N. Battista;Claire Infante-Rivard;James A. Hanley

  • Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities.

    Robyn Tamblyn;Michal Abrahamowicz;Dale Dauphinee;Elizabeth Wenghofer

  • A task-orientated intervention enhances walking distance and speed in the first year post stroke: a randomized controlled trial

    N M Salbach;N E Mayo;S Wood-Dauphinee;J A Hanley

  • Prostate Cancer and the Will Rogers Phenomenon

    Peter C. Albertsen;James A. Hanley;George H. Barrows;David F. Penson

  • The robustness of the "binormal" assumptions used in fitting ROC curves.

    James A. Hanley

  • The medical office of the 21st century (MOXXI): effectiveness of computerized decision-making support in reducing inappropriate prescribing in primary care

    Robyn Tamblyn;Allen Huang;Robert Perreault;André Jacques

  • The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer

    Charles G. Moertel;James A. Hanley

  • A heuristic approach to the formulas for population attributable fraction

    J A Hanley

  • 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer

    Peter R. Carroll

Frequent Co-Authors

Gilles Paradis
Gilles Paradis McGill University
Jennifer O'Loughlin
Jennifer O'Loughlin University of Montreal
Peter C. Albertsen
Peter C. Albertsen University of Connecticut Health Center
Mark S. Goldberg
Mark S. Goldberg McGill University
Robert W. Platt
Robert W. Platt McGill University
Barbara J. McNeil
Barbara J. McNeil Harvard University
Eduardo L. Franco
Eduardo L. Franco McGill University
François Coutlée
François Coutlée University of Montreal
Emile Levy
Emile Levy University of Montreal
David F. Penson
David F. Penson Vanderbilt University 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

Medicine offers a wealth of alternative and complementary career pathways, many now accessible via accredited online degrees. For those interested in nutrition and preventative health, pursuing an online dietitian degree can open doors to roles in hospitals, clinics, and wellness organizations.

Administrative careers in healthcare, such as hospital management or healthcare policy, may require advanced qualifications. Prospective leaders should consider which online healthcare degree programs are recognized for their accreditation by cahme? as accreditation ensures program quality and acceptance in the job market.

Registered nurses seeking expanded opportunities can benefit from online rn to bsn programs without clinicals, offering career advancement with greater flexibility for those balancing work and study.

For nurses aiming for the highest level of clinical practice, the fastest dnp online program options provide a pathway to earning a terminal nursing degree efficiently.

Exploring these diverse, accredited online programs can help students build specialized skills and tailor their medical careers to fit their interests and schedules.

Best Scientists Citing James A. Hanley

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles