World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 149 1183 1090 125 118 693 104674

John E. Deanfield publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by John E. Deanfield between 1980 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. John E. Deanfield published across 47 years, from 1980 to 2026, averaging 16.3 papers a year. Output peaked at 39 publications in 2014. 29 of the 764 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1980 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 39. Peak 39 publications in 2014. 1980: 4 publications 1981: 10 publications 1982: 9 publications 1983: 9 publications 1984: 16 publications 1985: 7 publications 1986: 8 publications 1987: 10 publications 1988: 4 publications 1989: 0 publications 1990: 5 publications 1991: 9 publications 1992: 6 publications 1993: 5 publications 1994: 16 publications 1995: 7 publications 1996: 16 publications 1997: 9 publications 1998: 8 publications 1999: 2 publications 2000: 8 publications 2001: 13 publications 2002: 20 publications 2003: 10 publications 2004: 8 publications 2005: 19 publications 2006: 21 publications 2007: 20 publications 2008: 24 publications 2009: 25 publications 2010: 26 publications 2011: 23 publications 2012: 27 publications 2013: 35 publications 2014: 39 publications 2015: 20 publications 2016: 28 publications 2017: 26 publications 2018: 26 publications 2019: 19 publications 2020: 33 publications 2021: 34 publications 2022: 22 publications 2023: 23 publications 2024: 26 publications 2025: 28 publications 2026: 1 publication
1980 2026

764 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
John E. Deanfield: publications per year, 1980 to 2026
Year Publications
1980 4
1981 10
1982 9
1983 9
1984 16
1985 7
1986 8
1987 10
1988 4
1989 0
1990 5
1991 9
1992 6
1993 5
1994 16
1995 7
1996 16
1997 9
1998 8
1999 2
2000 8
2001 13
2002 20
2003 10
2004 8
2005 19
2006 21
2007 20
2008 24
2009 25
2010 26
2011 23
2012 27
2013 35
2014 39
2015 20
2016 28
2017 26
2018 26
2019 19
2020 33
2021 34
2022 22
2023 23
2024 26
2025 28
2026 1
Total 764
Download as CSV

John E. Deanfield 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 John E. Deanfield 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, 681–700 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: 693 publications — 80th percentile

80% 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
681–700 336 693
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

John E. Deanfield 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 John E. Deanfield 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, 148–149 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: 149 D-Index — 94th percentile

94% 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
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 74 149
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

John E. Deanfield is affiliated with University College London in the United Kingdom. Their research spans extensively in the field of Medicine, with a significant focus on Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Molecular Biology, Oncology, and Surgery.

The main topics addressed in their work include Diabetes Treatment and Management, Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer, COVID-19 and healthcare impacts, Acute Myocardial Infarction Research, Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors, Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment, and Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention.

Deanfield has multiple frequent collaborators, including Mark de Belder, Chris P Gale, Mamas A. Mamas, Scott T. Chiesa, and Jianhua Wu, illustrating an extensive collaborative network in cardiovascular and metabolic research.

The most common venues for Deanfield's publications are:

  • European Heart Journal
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • The Lancet
  • Diabetes Care

Selected recent papers authored or co-authored by Deanfield include:

  • Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes, 2023, New England Journal of Medicine
  • COVID-19 pandemic and admission rates for and management of acute coronary syndromes in England, 2020, The Lancet
  • Effects of tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and waterpipe smoking on endothelial function and clinical outcomes, 2020, European Heart Journal
  • Metabolomic profiles predict individual multidisease outcomes, 2022, Nature Medicine
  • Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) rationale and design, 2020, American Heart Journal

The breadth of Deanfield's work encompasses clinical trials, healthcare impacts of pandemics, metabolic profiling, and the effects of various substances on cardiovascular health. Their research contributions provide data on pharmacological interventions such as semaglutide in obesity and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as epidemiological insights into acute coronary syndrome admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Best Publications

  • Non-invasive detection of endothelial dysfunction in children and adults at risk of atherosclerosis

    D.S. Celermajer;K.E. Sorensen;V.M. Gooch;D.J. Spiegelhalter

  • Guidelines for the ultrasound assessment of endothelial-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation of the brachial artery: A report of the International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force

    Mary C Corretti;Todd J Anderson;Emelia J Benjamin;David Celermajer

  • Endothelial Function and Dysfunction Testing and Clinical Relevance

    John E. Deanfield;Julian P. Halcox;Ton J. Rabelink

  • Cigarette smoking is associated with dose-related and potentially reversible impairment of endothelium-dependent dilation in healthy young adults.

    David S. Celermajer;Keld E. Sorensen;Dimitri Georgakopoulos;Catherine Bull

  • Endothelium-dependent dilation in the systemic arteries of asymptomatic subjects relates to coronary risk factors and their interaction☆

    David S. Celermajer;Keld E. Sorensen;Catherine Bull;Jacqui Robinson

  • Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people.

    Eleni Rapsomaniki;Adam Timmis;Julie George;Mar Pujades-Rodriguez

  • Aging is associated with endothelial dysfunction in healthy men years before the age-related decline in women

    David S. Celermajer;Keld E. Sorensen;David J. Spiegelhalter;Dimitri Georgakopoulos

  • Treatment of Periodontitis and Endothelial Function

    Maurizio S. Tonetti;Francesco D'Aiuto;Luigi Nibali;Ann Donald

  • The Assessment of Endothelial Function From Research Into Clinical Practice

    Andreas J. Flammer;Todd Anderson;David S. Celermajer;Mark A. Creager;Mark A. Creager

  • Acute Blood Pressure Lowering, Vasoprotective, and Antiplatelet Properties of Dietary Nitrate via Bioconversion to Nitrite

    Andrew J. Webb;Nakul Patel;Stavros Loukogeorgakis;Mike Okorie

  • Passive Smoking and Impaired Endothelium-Dependent Arterial Dilatation in Healthy Young Adults

    David S. Celermajer;Mark R. Adams;Peter Clarkson;Jacqui Robinson

  • Type 2 diabetes and incidence of cardiovascular diseases: a cohort study in 1·9 million people

    Anoop Dinesh Shah;Claudia Langenberg;Claudia Langenberg;Eleni Rapsomaniki;Spiros Denaxas

  • Endothelial function and dysfunction. Part II: Association with cardiovascular risk factors and diseases. A statement by the Working Group on Endothelins and Endothelial Factors of the European Society of Hypertension

    Hanspeter Brunner;John R Cockcroft;John E Deanfield;Ann Donald

  • Non-invasive measurement of human endothelium dependent arterial responses: accuracy and reproducibility.

    K. E. Sorensen;D. S. Celermajer;D. J. Spiegelhalter;D. Georgakopoulos

  • De novo mutations in histone-modifying genes in congenital heart disease

    Samir Zaidi;Murim Choi;Hiroko Wakimoto;Lijiang Ma

  • International Day for the Evaluation of Abdominal Obesity (IDEA): a study of waist circumference, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus in 168,000 primary care patients in 63 countries.

    Beverley Balkau;John E. Deanfield;Jean Pierre Després;Jean Pierre Bassand

  • Myocardial ischaemia during daily life in patients with stable angina: its relation to symptoms and heart rate changes.

    J.E. Deanfield;A.P. Selwyn;S. Chierchia;A. Maseri

  • Mental Stress Induces Transient Endothelial Dysfunction in Humans

    Lorenzo Ghiadoni;Ann E. Donald;Mark Cropley;Michael J. Mullen

  • Endothelial function and dysfunction. Part I: Methodological issues for assessment in the different vascular beds: A statement by the working group on endothelin and endothelial factors of the European society of hypertension

    John E Deanfield;Ann Donald;Claudio Ferri;Cristina Giannattasio

  • Type 2 diabetes and incidence of a wide range of cardiovascular diseases: a cohort study in 1-9 million people

    Anoop Dinesh Shah;Claudia Langenberg;Eleni Rapsomaniki;Spiros Denaxas

Frequent Co-Authors

Aroon D. Hingorani
Aroon D. Hingorani University College London
David S. Celermajer
David S. Celermajer Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Debbie A. Lawlor
Debbie A. Lawlor University of Bristol
Alun D. Hughes
Alun D. Hughes University College London
Rebecca Hardy
Rebecca Hardy University College London
George Davey Smith
George Davey Smith University of Bristol
Naveed Sattar
Naveed Sattar University of Glasgow
Diana Kuh
Diana Kuh University College London
Mamas A. Mamas
Mamas A. Mamas Keele University
Peter H. Whincup
Peter H. Whincup St George's, University of London

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

Charting a career in medicine doesn’t always require a traditional medical degree. Many students are exploring alternative pathways and online degrees that open doors in healthcare, some of which offer greater flexibility, affordability, and faster entry into the workforce.

For those interested in healthcare support roles, consider accredited medical billing and coding schools online with financial aid. These programs focus on essential skills for managing patient information, often with options for financial support.

Nursing remains a popular career pathway. Some prospective nurses look for a nursing school that doesn’t require teas, helping them bypass certain standardized testing requirements and begin their education more quickly.

For those with an interest in healthcare leadership, a health care administration degree online can provide the management and business skills needed for roles in hospitals, clinics, and health organizations.

Registered nurses seeking career advancement may also explore bridge programs such as asn to fnp. These programs accelerate the journey from an associate to a master’s degree, preparing nurses for advanced practice and expanded opportunities.

Best Scientists Citing John E. Deanfield

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles