World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Best Female Scientists
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Best Female Scientists 122 494 470 51 49 710 62824
Medicine 125 3056 2850 307 294 707 66160

Jane F. Apperley publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Jane F. Apperley between 1984 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Jane F. Apperley published across 43 years, from 1984 to 2026, averaging 18.2 papers a year. Output peaked at 50 publications in 2007. 12 of the 783 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40 50
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1984 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 50. Peak 50 publications in 2007. 1984: 1 publication 1985: 6 publications 1986: 4 publications 1987: 4 publications 1988: 1 publication 1989: 3 publications 1990: 3 publications 1991: 0 publications 1992: 2 publications 1993: 2 publications 1994: 4 publications 1995: 5 publications 1996: 5 publications 1997: 12 publications 1998: 9 publications 1999: 14 publications 2000: 14 publications 2001: 19 publications 2002: 18 publications 2003: 19 publications 2004: 19 publications 2005: 28 publications 2006: 27 publications 2007: 50 publications 2008: 37 publications 2009: 30 publications 2010: 39 publications 2011: 32 publications 2012: 35 publications 2013: 37 publications 2014: 23 publications 2015: 22 publications 2016: 32 publications 2017: 26 publications 2018: 23 publications 2019: 28 publications 2020: 23 publications 2021: 25 publications 2022: 26 publications 2023: 38 publications 2024: 26 publications 2025: 11 publications 2026: 1 publication
1984 2026

783 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Jane F. Apperley: publications per year, 1984 to 2026
Year Publications
1984 1
1985 6
1986 4
1987 4
1988 1
1989 3
1990 3
1991 0
1992 2
1993 2
1994 4
1995 5
1996 5
1997 12
1998 9
1999 14
2000 14
2001 19
2002 18
2003 19
2004 19
2005 28
2006 27
2007 50
2008 37
2009 30
2010 39
2011 32
2012 35
2013 37
2014 23
2015 22
2016 32
2017 26
2018 23
2019 28
2020 23
2021 25
2022 26
2023 38
2024 26
2025 11
2026 1
Total 783
Download as CSV

Jane F. Apperley 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 Jane F. Apperley 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, 701–720 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: 707 publications — 81st percentile

81% 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
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
701–720 307 707
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

Jane F. Apperley 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 Jane F. Apperley 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, 124–125 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: 125 D-Index — 85th percentile

85% 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
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
124–125 256 125
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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Best Female Scientists Award

Overview

Jane F. Apperley is affiliated with Imperial College London in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily falls within the field of Medicine, with a particular focus on Hematology, Genetics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Oncology, and Rheumatology.

The scientist's work covers several specific topics, including:

  • Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
  • Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
  • Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • Eosinophilic Disorders and Syndromes
  • Click Chemistry and Applications
  • Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment

Jane F. Apperley has contributed to numerous publications in leading scientific journals, with frequent appearance in the following venues:

  • Blood
  • Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma & Leukemia
  • Leukemia
  • British Journal of Haematology
  • Bone Marrow Transplantation

Their recent papers include the following publications:

  • The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic/Dendritic Neoplasms, 2022, Leukemia
  • European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia, 2020, Leukemia
  • A phase 3, open-label, randomized study of asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, vs bosutinib in CML after 2 or more prior TKIs, 2021, Blood
  • COVID-19 and stem cell transplantation; results from an EBMT and GETH multicenter prospective survey, 2021, Leukemia
  • Ponatinib dose-ranging study in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: a randomized, open-label phase 2 clinical trial, 2021, Blood

Collaboration is an important aspect of their research activities. Frequent co-authors working alongside Jane F. Apperley include:

  • Jorge E. Cortés
  • Michael J. Mauro
  • Andreas Hochhaus
  • Dragana Milojković
  • Michael W. Deininger

Best Publications

  • European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: 2013

    Michele Baccarani;Michael W. Deininger;Gianantonio Rosti;Andreas Hochhaus

  • Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant.

    Joan BladÉ;Diana Samson;Donna Reece;Jane Apperley

  • Defining the intensity of conditioning regimens: working definitions.

    Andrea Bacigalupo;Karen Ballen;Doug Rizzo;Sergio Giralt

  • Evolving concepts in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet

    Michele Baccarani;Giuseppe Saglio;John Goldman;Andreas Hochhaus

  • Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: An Update of Concepts and Management Recommendations of European LeukemiaNet

    Michele Baccarani;Jorge Cortes;Fabrizio Pane;Dietger Niederwieser

  • A Phase 2 Trial of Ponatinib in Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive Leukemias

    Jorge E. Cortes;D. W. Kim;J. Pinilla-Ibarz;P. Le Coutre

  • European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia

    Andreas Hochhaus;Michele Baccarani;Richard T. Silver;Charles A. Schiffer

  • Adherence Is the Critical Factor for Achieving Molecular Responses in Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Who Achieve Complete Cytogenetic Responses on Imatinib

    David Marin;Alexandra Bazeos;Francois Xavier Mahon;Lina Eliasson

  • Risk assessment for patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia before allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation

    A. Gratwohl;J. Hermans;J. Goldman;W. Arcese

  • Part I: Mechanisms of resistance to imatinib in chronic myeloid leukaemia

    Jane F Apperley

  • Epigenome-wide association study of body mass index, and the adverse outcomes of adiposity

    Simone Wahl;Alexander Drong;Benjamin Lehne;Marie Loh;Marie Loh;Marie Loh

  • Dasatinib induces notable hematologic and cytogenetic responses in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of imatinib therapy

    Andreas Hochhaus;Hagop M. Kantarjian;Michele Baccarani;Jeffrey H. Lipton

  • The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts

    Camille Abboud;Ellin Berman;Adam Cohen

  • Response to imatinib mesylate in patients with chronic myeloproliferative diseases with rearrangements of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta.

    Jane F. Apperley;Martine Gardembas;Junia V. Melo;Robin Russell-Jones

  • Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Incidence of Sustained Responses in an Intention-to-Treat Analysis

    Hugues de Lavallade;Jane F. Apperley;Jamshid S. Khorashad;Dragana Milojkovic

  • Apoptosis in mesenchymal stromal cells induces in vivo recipient-mediated immunomodulation.

    Antonio Galleu;Yanira Riffo-Vasquez;Cristina Trento;Cara Lomas

  • Assessment of BCR-ABL1 Transcript Levels at 3 Months Is the Only Requirement for Predicting Outcome for Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treated With Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

    David Marin;Amr R. Ibrahim;Claire Lucas;Gareth Gerrard

  • Allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell compared with bone marrow transplantation in the management of hematologic malignancies: an individual patient data meta-analysis of nine randomized trials

    Mahmoud al-Jurf;Mahmoud al-Jurf;Francisco Aranha;Francisco Aranha;Claudio Annasetti;Jane F. Apperley;Jane F. Apperley

  • Dasatinib induces complete hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic myeloid leukemia in blast crisis

    Jorge E Cortes;Philippe Rousselot;Dong Wook Kim;Ellen Ritchie

  • Bisphosphonates induce apoptosis in human myeloma cell lines: a novel anti-tumour activity.

    C M Shipman;Michael John Rogers;J F Apperley;R G Russell

Frequent Co-Authors

John M. Goldman
John M. Goldman Imperial College London
Richard Szydlo
Richard Szydlo Imperial College London
Jorge E. Cortes
Jorge E. Cortes Augusta University
Dietger Niederwieser
Dietger Niederwieser Leipzig University
Andreas Hochhaus
Andreas Hochhaus Friedrich Schiller University Jena
Alois Gratwohl
Alois Gratwohl University of Basel
Francesco Dazzi
Francesco Dazzi King's College London
Hagop M. Kantarjian
Hagop M. Kantarjian The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Michele Baccarani
Michele Baccarani University of Bologna
Michael W. Deininger
Michael W. Deininger University of Utah

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 careers in medicine isn’t limited to becoming a physician. There are a variety of online degree programs that provide flexible options for students interested in healthcare. Many aspiring nurse practitioners pursue cheapest dnp online programs to earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree without the high costs of traditional, on-campus study.

If pharmacy interests you, accredited online pharmacy schools offer advanced degrees designed for busy professionals. For those interested in data management and healthcare technology, a him bachelor's degree online can open doors to roles in managing patient records and healthcare IT systems.

Additionally, students seeking entry-level opportunities can consider online medical billing and coding courses, which provide the training needed to support healthcare facilities with administrative and insurance-related tasks. These alternative pathways make it easier for individuals to launch or advance a career in healthcare on their own schedule.

Best Scientists Citing Jane F. Apperley

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles