World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
77
Citations
22689
World Ranking
18397
National Ranking
9180

John Koreth 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 Koreth 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: 391 publications — 37th percentile

37% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

John Koreth 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 Koreth 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: 77 D-Index — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

John Koreth is affiliated with Harvard University in the United States and specializes in medicine with a focus on hematology, immunology, oncology, genetics, and public health. Their research primarily centers on hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and related immune and cancer biology topics.

Koreth's recent notable papers include:

  • Harmonizing Definitions for Diagnostic Criteria and Prognostic Assessment of Transplantation-Associated Thrombotic Microangiopathy: A Report on Behalf of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Asia-Pacific Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group, and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (2022), published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy
  • Long-term follow-up of BMT CTN 0702 (STaMINA) of postautologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) strategies in the upfront treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) (2020), published in Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Impaired T- and NK-cell reconstitution after haploidentical HCT with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (2021), published in Blood Advances
  • Impact of diagnostic genetics on remission MRD and transplantation outcomes in older patients with AML (2022), published in Blood
  • Harmonizing definitions for hematopoietic recovery, graft rejection, graft failure, poor graft function, and donor chimerism in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a report on behalf of the EBMT, ASTCT, CIBMTR, and APBMT (2024), published in Bone Marrow Transplantation

The principal frequent coauthors in Koreth's collaborations are:

  • Robert J. Soiffer
  • Corey Cutler
  • Joseph H. Antin
  • Rizwan Romee
  • Mahasweta Gooptu

Koreth publishes regularly in several biomedical journals. The most common venues for their work include:

  • Blood
  • Transplantation and Cellular Therapy
  • Blood Advances
  • Bone Marrow Transplantation
  • Haematologica

Their research fields extend into several subdisciplines within medicine, such as:

  • Hematology
  • Immunology
  • Oncology
  • Genetics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Main topics of study include:

  • Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
  • Immune Cell Function and Interaction
  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • CAR-T cell therapy research
  • Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
  • T-cell and B-cell Immunology

Best Publications

  • Interleukin-2 and Regulatory T Cells in Graft-versus-Host Disease

    John Koreth;Ken Ichi Matsuoka;Haesook T. Kim;Sean M. McDonough

  • Toward Improving Caenorhabditis elegans Phenome Mapping With an ORFeome-Based RNAi Library

    Jaen François Rual;Julian Ceron;John Koreth;Tong Hao

  • Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials.

    John Koreth;Richard Schlenk;Kenneth J. Kopecky;Sumihisa Honda

  • Measuring Therapeutic Response in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: IV. Response Criteria Working Group Report

    Stephanie J. Lee;Daniel Wolff;Carrie Kitko;John Koreth

  • Ipilimumab for Patients with Relapse after Allogeneic Transplantation

    Matthew S. Davids;Haesook T. Kim;Pavan Bachireddy;Caitlin Costello

  • Prognostic impact of elevated pretransplantation serum ferritin in patients undergoing myeloablative stem cell transplantation

    Philippe Armand;Haesook T. Kim;Corey S. Cutler;Vincent T. Ho

  • Low-Dose Interleukin-2 Therapy Restores Regulatory T Cell Homeostasis in Patients with Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease

    Ken-ichi Matsuoka;John Koreth;Haesook T. Kim;O. Gregory Bascug

  • Increasing Incidence of Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease in Allogeneic Transplantation: A Report from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research

    Sally Arai;Mukta Arora;Tao Wang;Tao Wang;Stephen R. Spellman

  • Somatic Mutations Predict Poor Outcome in Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndrome After Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation

    Rafael Bejar;Kristen E. Stevenson;Bennett Caughey;R. Coleman Lindsley

  • Clonal Hematopoiesis Associated With Adverse Outcomes After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma

    Christopher J Gibson;R Coleman Lindsley;Vatche Tchekmedyian;Brenton G Mar

  • Measuring Therapeutic Response in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease

    Stephanie J. Lee;Daniel Wolff;Carrie Kitko;John Koreth

  • A disease risk index for patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation

    Philippe Armand;Christopher J. Gibson;Corey Cutler;Vincent T. Ho

  • Altered B-cell homeostasis and excess BAFF in human chronic graft-versus-host disease.

    Stefanie Sarantopoulos;Kristen E. Stevenson;Haesook T. Kim;Corey S. Cutler

  • Prostaglandin-modulated umbilical cord blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

    Corey Cutler;Pratik Multani;David Robbins;Haesook T. Kim

  • Role of Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Older Patients With De Novo Myelodysplastic Syndromes: An International Collaborative Decision Analysis

    John Koreth;Joseph Pidala;Waleska S. Perez;H. Joachim Deeg

  • High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    John Koreth;Corey S. Cutler;Benjamin Djulbegovic;Rajesh Behl

  • Altered regulatory T cell homeostasis in patients with CD4+ lymphopenia following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

    Ken Ichi Matsuoka;Haesook T. Kim;Sean McDonough;Gregory Bascug

  • Autologous Transplantation, Consolidation, and Maintenance Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Results of the BMT CTN 0702 Trial

    Edward A. Stadtmauer;Marcelo C. Pasquini;Beth Blackwell;Parameswaran Hari

  • Three prophylaxis regimens (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide; tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) versus tacrolimus and methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease with haemopoietic cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning: a randomised phase 2 trial with a non-randomised contemporaneous control group (BMT CTN 1203)

    Javier Bolaños-Meade;Ran Reshef;Raphael Fraser;Mingwei Fei

  • Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies predict outcome in double umbilical cord blood transplantation

    Corey Cutler;Haesook T. Kim;Lixian Sun;Doreen Sese

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert J. Soiffer
Robert J. Soiffer Harvard University
Corey Cutler
Corey Cutler Harvard University
Joseph H. Antin
Joseph H. Antin Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Vincent T. Ho
Vincent T. Ho Harvard University
Edwin P. Alyea
Edwin P. Alyea Harvard University
Haesook T. Kim
Haesook T. Kim Harvard University
Jerome Ritz
Jerome Ritz Harvard University
Philippe Armand
Philippe Armand Harvard University
Bruce R. Blazar
Bruce R. Blazar University of Minnesota
Catherine J. Wu
Catherine J. Wu Harvard 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 medical degrees and pathways online can open rewarding careers in healthcare, even beyond medical school. Many professionals choose nursing, primarily because online education makes it more accessible and affordable. For registered nurses seeking to advance, the most affordable accredited online rn to bsn programs let you earn a bachelor’s degree with flexibility and value.

Non-nurses interested in advancing quickly can explore direct entry msn programs for non nurses online, designed to fast-track graduates into advanced practice roles. If you’re starting from scratch, choosing one of the online adn programs may offer a smoother admissions process and a streamlined path into nursing.

If direct patient care isn’t your goal, consider medical billing and coding—an in-demand, remote-friendly field. Wondering about affordability? Find out can you get financial aid for medical billing and coding to help manage tuition costs. With diverse online options, you can build a healthcare career tailored to your interests and life circumstances.

Best Scientists Citing John Koreth

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles