World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
87
Citations
29090
World Ranking
13598
National Ranking
6909

Jerome J. Schentag 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 Jerome J. Schentag 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: 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 341 publications — 26th percentile

26% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Jerome J. Schentag 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 Jerome J. Schentag 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: 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 87 D-Index — 34th percentile

34% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Jerome J. Schentag is affiliated with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York in the United States. Their research primarily spans the fields of Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, with significant contributions to Oncology, Molecular Biology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Physiology, and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine.

Their published work focuses on several main topics, including cancer immunotherapy and biomarkers, CAR-T cell therapy research, brain metastases and treatment, ion channel regulation and function, pain mechanisms and treatments, cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias, and melanoma and MAPK pathways.

Jerome J. Schentag has contributed to various scientific publications across multiple venues. These venues include:

  • Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
  • Journal of Pain Research
  • Clinical Pharmacology Advances and Applications
  • European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology
  • Diabetes

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Jerome J. Schentag include:

  • Igor Puzanov
  • Poornima Subramanian
  • Yan Yatsynovich
  • David M. Jacobs
  • Maya R. Chilbert

The scientist's recent papers reflect a focus on immunotherapy, pain research, cardiac conditions, and novel drug delivery systems. Selected recent publications are:

  • Clinical characteristics, time course, treatment and outcomes of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis, 2021, Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
  • A Review of the Therapeutic Targeting of SCN9A and Nav1.7 for Pain Relief in Current Human Clinical Trials, 2023, Journal of Pain Research
  • Neural Net Modeling of Checkpoint Inhibitor Related Myocarditis and Steroid Response, 2022, Clinical Pharmacology Advances and Applications
  • Development of the cholestosome, a novel delivery system made exclusively from cholesteryl esters, 2023, European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology
  • 1013-P: Modification of Inflammatory and Alzheimer Markers with Intracellular Delivery of Insulin Using Cholestosomes, 2020, Diabetes

Best Publications

  • Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients.

    A Forrest;D E Nix;C H Ballow;T F Goss

  • Relationship of MIC and Bactericidal Activity to Efficacy of Vancomycin for Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

    George Sakoulas;Pamela A. Moise-Broder;Jerome Schentag;Alan Forrest

  • A Controlled Clinical Trial of E5 Murine Monoclonal IgM Antibody to Endotoxin in the Treatment of Gram-Negative Sepsis

    R L Greenman;R M Schein;M A Martin;R P Wenzel

  • Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions

    Jason A Roberts;Jason A Roberts;Mohd H Abdul-Aziz;Jeffrey Lipman;Jeffrey Lipman;Johan W Mouton

  • Pharmacodynamics of Vancomycin and Other Antimicrobials in Patients with Staphylococcus aureus Lower Respiratory Tract Infections

    Pamela A. Moise-Broder;Alan Forrest;Mary C. Birmingham;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Telemetry capsule and process

    Jerome J. Schentag;David T. D'andrea

  • Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Factors Associated with the Development of Bacterial Resistance in Acutely Ill Patients during Therapy

    Jennifer K. Thomas;Alan Forrest;Sujata M. Bhavnani;Judith M. Hyatt

  • Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group.

    Mitchell P. Fink;David R. Snydman;Michael S. Niederman;Kenneth V. Leeper Jr.

  • Evaluation of area under the inhibitory curve (AUIC) and time above the minimum inhibitory concentration (T>MIC) as predictors of outcome for cefepime and ceftazidime in serious bacterial infections

    Peggy S. McKinnon;Joseph A. Paladino;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Linezolid for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant, Gram-Positive Infections: Experience from a Compassionate-Use Program

    Mary C. Birmingham;Craig R. Rayner;Alison K. Meagher;Susan M. Flavin

  • Applied pharmacokinetics : principles of therapeutic drug monitoring

    William E. Evans;Jerome J. Schentag;William J. Jusko

  • The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Focus on antibacterial agents.

    Judith M. Hyatt;Peggy S. McKinnon;Gabrial S. Zimmer;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Opportunities for Integration of Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Toxicokinetics in Rational Drug Development

    Carl C. Peck;William H. Barr;Leslie Z. Benet;Jerry Collins

  • Accessory Gene Regulator Group II Polymorphism in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Is Predictive of Failure of Vancomycin Therapy

    Pamela A. Moise-Broder;George Sakoulas;George M. Eliopoulos;Jerome J. Schentag

  • The burden of Staphylococcus aureus infections on hospitals in the United States: an analysis of the 2000 and 2001 Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database.

    Gary A. Noskin;Robert J. Rubin;Jerome J. Schentag;Jan Kluytmans

  • Sampling capsule and process

    David T. D'Andrea;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Clinical Pharmacodynamics of Linezolid in Seriously Ill Patients Treated in a Compassionate Use Programme

    Craig R Rayner;Alan Forrest;Alison K Meagher;Mary C Birmingham

  • Interpretation of antibiotic concentration ratios measured in epithelial lining fluid

    Sungmin Kiem;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Vancomycin in vitro bactericidal activity and its relationship to efficacy in clearance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

    Pamela A. Moise;George Sakoulas;Alan Forrest;Jerome J. Schentag

  • Factors affecting theophylline clearances: Age, tobacco, marijuana, cirrhosis, congestive heart failure, obesity, oral contraceptives, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and ethanol

    William J. Jusko;Mark J. Gardner;Antoinette Mangione;Jerome J. Schentag

Frequent Co-Authors

Alan Forrest
Alan Forrest University at Buffalo, State University of New York
William J. Jusko
William J. Jusko University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Frank V. Bright
Frank V. Bright University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Jan Kluytmans
Jan Kluytmans Utrecht University
Gerhard Levy
Gerhard Levy University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Leslie Z. Benet
Leslie Z. Benet University of California, San Francisco
Sujata M. Bhavnani
Sujata M. Bhavnani University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Donald R. Stanski
Donald R. Stanski Stanford University School of Medicine
Jerry M. Collins
Jerry M. Collins National Institutes of Health
James Williams
James Williams Australian National 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 alternative or complementary career pathways in healthcare can broaden your opportunities if you’re considering or currently studying Medicine in the USA. Many fields offer accessible online programs that cater to students seeking flexibility or career advancement.

For those interested in administrative and technical roles, best online medical billing and coding schools provide training in processing healthcare records—an essential skill in today’s medical landscape. If you’re motivated by patient care but looking for a fast track, some absn programs that don't require teas allow aspiring nurses to begin their careers without specific standardized testing barriers.

Leadership-oriented students may prefer online health administration programs, which help you step into managerial positions within healthcare settings. Similarly, nurses holding an associate degree can further their scope of practice with asn to fnp programs—accelerated bridges that lead to advanced clinical roles.

These online study options can enrich your medical education journey, help you diversify skill sets, and open new career pathways beyond the traditional MD.

Best Scientists Citing Jerome J. Schentag

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles