World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
98
Citations
38824
World Ranking
8875
National Ranking
862

John K. Field 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 K. Field 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: 611 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: 549 publications — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

John K. Field 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 K. Field 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: 400 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: 98 D-Index — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

John K. Field is affiliated with the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom. Their research spans multiple areas within medicine, focusing primarily on pulmonary and respiratory medicine as well as molecular biology. Their work encompasses oncology and cancer research with special attention to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

The main fields of study for John K. Field include:

  • Medicine
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Subfields relevant to their research are:

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Molecular Biology
  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

John K. Field's research topics cover:

  • Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • RNA modifications and cancer
  • Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research

Their recent publications demonstrate a strong engagement with lung cancer research and clinical oncology. Selected papers include:

  • Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives, 2020, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
  • Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis, 2021, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
  • Treatment Characteristics and Real-World Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Unresectable Stage III NSCLC Who Received Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy: Findings From the PACIFIC-R Study, 2022, Journal of Thoracic Oncology
  • Causal relationships between body mass index, smoking and lung cancer: Univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization, 2020, International Journal of Cancer
  • Long non-coding RNA dysregulation is a frequent event in non-small cell lung carcinoma pathogenesis, 2020, British Journal of Cancer

Frequent co-authors collaborating with John K. Field include:

  • Rayjean J. Hung
  • Geoffrey Liu
  • David C. Christiani
  • Adonina Tardón
  • Michael P.A. Davies

Their work has been published extensively in certain academic venues, among which are:

  • Journal of Thoracic Oncology (31 publications)
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (6 publications)
  • European Journal of Cancer (6 publications)
  • Lung Cancer (5 publications)
  • Cancer Research (4 publications)

Beyond journal articles, John K. Field has contributed to book publications, including a title published by the University of Arizona Press:

  • The Marana Community in the Hohokam World (2022)

Best Publications

  • Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer

    Julie George;Jing Shan Lim;Se Jin Jang;Yupeng Cun

  • Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer

    Martin Peifer;Lynnette Fernández-Cuesta;Martin L. Sos;Julie George

  • A susceptibility locus for lung cancer maps to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes on 15q25

    Rayjean J. Hung;James D. Mckay;Valerie Gaborieau;Paolo Boffetta

  • Quantitative high-throughput analysis of DNA methylation patterns by base-specific cleavage and mass spectrometry

    Mathias Ehrich;Matthew R. Nelson;Patrick Stanssens;Marc Zabeau

  • Large-scale association analysis identifies new lung cancer susceptibility loci and heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across histological subtypes

    James D McKay;Rayjean J Hung;Younghun Han;Xuchen Zong

  • The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups

    Michael T. Jaklitsch;Francine L. Jacobson;John H.M. Austin;John K. Field

  • Obesity, metabolic factors and risk of different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study

    Robert Carreras-Torres;Mattias Johansson;Philip C. Haycock;Kaitlin H. Wade

  • Lung cancer susceptibility locus at 5p15.33

    James D McKay;Rayjean J Hung;Rayjean J Hung;Valerie Gaborieau;Paolo Boffetta

  • A genomics-based classification of human lung tumors

    Danila Seidel;Thomas Zander;Lukas C. Heukamp;Martin Peifer

  • A Genome-wide Association Study of Lung Cancer Identifies a Region of Chromosome 5p15 Associated with Risk for Adenocarcinoma.

    Maria Teresa Landi;Nilanjan Chatterjee;Kai Yu;Lynn R. Goldin

  • European position statement on lung cancer screening

    Matthijs Oudkerk;Anand Devaraj;Rozemarijn Vliegenthart;Thomas Henzler

  • The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer.

    A Cassidy;J P Myles;M van Tongeren;R D Page

  • Second primary tumors in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

    Andrew S. Jones;Pradeep Morar;David E. Phillips;John K. Field

  • Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Screening: Achievements, Promises, and Challenges

    Luis M. Seijo;Nir Peled;Daniel Ajona;Mattia Boeri

  • Genetic aberrations in oral or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCCHN): 1. Carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair and cell cycle control.

    C. Scully;J.K. Field;H. Tanzawa

  • The OncoArray Consortium: A Network for Understanding the Genetic Architecture of Common Cancers.

    Christopher I. Amos;Joe Dennis;Zhaoming Wang;Jinyoung Byun

  • UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening

    J. K. Field;S. W. Duffy;D. R. Baldwin;D. K. Whynes

  • Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction — evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives

    Matthijs Oudkerk;ShiYuan Liu;Marjolein A Heuvelmans;Marjolein A Heuvelmans;Joan E Walter

  • Elevated P53 expression correlates with a history of heavy smoking in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

    JK Field;DA Spandidos;A Malliri;JR Gosney

  • Hypomethylation of retrotransposable elements correlates with genomic instability in non-small cell lung cancer.

    Alexandros Daskalos;Georgios Nikolaidis;George Xinarianos;Paraskevi Savvari

Frequent Co-Authors

Stephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy Queen Mary University of London
Rayjean J. Hung
Rayjean J. Hung Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
David C. Christiani
David C. Christiani Harvard University
Christopher I. Amos
Christopher I. Amos Baylor College of Medicine
Maria Teresa Landi
Maria Teresa Landi National Institutes of Health
Paul Brennan
Paul Brennan International Agency For Research On Cancer
Stig E. Bojesen
Stig E. Bojesen University of Copenhagen
Geoffrey Liu
Geoffrey Liu Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
Angela Risch
Angela Risch University of Salzburg
Neil E. Caporaso
Neil E. Caporaso National Institutes of Health

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

If you’re considering a career in medicine but want to explore alternative or support roles in healthcare, there are many flexible online degrees and career pathways available. A popular entry point is nursing, where online adn programs allow students to earn an Associate Degree in Nursing. These programs are ideal for those seeking a faster route to a rewarding healthcare career.

For individuals more interested in the administrative and technical side of healthcare, training in online medical billing and coding with financial aid can open doors to in-demand jobs in hospitals and clinics. These online options make education more accessible and affordable.

Many aspiring licensed practical nurses (LPNs) wonder, do you have to take a teas test for lpn? Some nursing schools no longer require this standardized exam, making it easier for more students to enroll and begin their nursing journey.

If you are interested in hospital or clinic management, earning an online healthcare administration degree offers significant career growth potential, combining business skills with healthcare knowledge.

Best Scientists Citing John K. Field

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles