World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Karin Verspoor

Karin Verspoor

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
47
Citations
9952
World Ranking
6442
National Ranking
202

Karin Verspoor publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Karin Verspoor sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 287 publications — 71st percentile

71% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Karin Verspoor D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Karin Verspoor sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 47 D-Index — 56th percentile

56% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Karin Verspoor is affiliated with RMIT University in Australia and is an active researcher in the fields of computer science, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and medicine. Their work spans several hundred publications, with a strong focus on artificial intelligence applications and biomedical informatics.

Their main fields of study include:

  • Computer Science
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
  • Medicine

Within these areas, they have contributed extensively to key subfields such as:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Molecular Biology
  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
  • Epidemiology
  • Health Informatics

The research topics frequently addressed in their work include:

  • Topic Modeling
  • Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Karin Verspoor has co-authored numerous papers with several recurrent collaborators, including:

  • Timothy Baldwin
  • Trevor Cohn
  • Zenan Zhai
  • Biaoyan Fang
  • Simon Šuster

Their publications frequently appear in venues such as:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • Bioinformatics

Some recent papers by Karin Verspoor include:

  • The Secondary Use of Electronic Health Records for Data Mining: Data Characteristics and Challenges, 2022, ACM Computing Surveys
  • Artificial intelligence for clinical decision support in neurology, 2020, Brain Communications
  • Early prediction of incident liver disease using conventional risk factors and gut-microbiome-augmented gradient boosting, 2022, Cell Metabolism
  • Describing the antimicrobial usage patterns of companion animal veterinary practices; free text analysis of more than 4.4 million consultation records, 2020, PLoS ONE
  • Evaluating the Performance of Various Machine Learning Algorithms to Detect Subclinical Keratoconus, 2020, Translational Vision Science & Technology

Best Publications

  • A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction

    Predrag Radivojac;Wyatt T Clark;Tal Ronnen Oron;Alexandra M Schnoes

  • Findings of the 2016 Conference on Machine Translation

    Ondˇrej Bojar;Rajen Chatterjee;Christian Federmann;Yvette Graham

  • An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T. Clark;Asma R. Bankapur

  • The CHEMDNER corpus of chemicals and drugs and its annotation principles.

    Martin Krallinger;Obdulia Rabal;Florian Leitner;Miguel Vazquez

  • SemEval-2017 Task 3: Community Question Answering

    Preslav Nakov;Doris Hoogeveen;Lluís Màrquez;Alessandro Moschitti

  • An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T Clark;Asma R Bankapur

  • Concept annotation in the CRAFT corpus

    Michael Bada;Miriam Eckert;Donald Evans;Kristin Garcia

  • Big data in medicine is driving big changes.

    F. Martin-Sanchez;K. Verspoor

  • BioC: a minimalist approach to interoperability for biomedical text processing

    Donald C. Comeau;Rezarta Islamaj Doğan;Paolo Ciccarese;Kevin Bretonnel Cohen

  • Adjusting for chance clustering comparison measures

    Simone Romano;Nguyen Xuan Vinh;James Bailey;Karin Verspoor

  • The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different

    K Bretonnel Cohen;K Bretonnel Cohen;Helen L Johnson;Karin Verspoor;Christophe Roeder

  • The gene normalization task in BioCreative III

    Zhiyong Lu;Hung-Yu Kao;Chih-Hsuan Wei;Minlie Huang

  • BioLemmatizer: a lemmatization tool for morphological processing of biomedical text

    Haibin Liu;Tom Christiansen;William A Baumgartner;Karin Verspoor

  • Automatic English-Chinese name transliteration for development of multilingual resources

    Unknown

  • Large-scale biomedical concept recognition: an evaluation of current automatic annotators and their parameters

    Christopher S. Funk;William A. Baumgartner;Benjamin Garcia;Christophe Roeder

  • A corpus of full-text journal articles is a robust evaluation tool for revealing differences in performance of biomedical natural language processing tools

    Karin Verspoor;Kevin Bretonnel Cohen;Arrick Lanfranchi;Colin Warner

  • Standardized Mutual Information for Clustering Comparisons: One Step Further in Adjustment for Chance

    Simone Romano;James Bailey;Vinh Nguyen;Karin Verspoor

  • Biomedical text mining: State-of-the-art, open problems and future challenges

    Andreas Holzinger;Johannes Schantl;Miriam Schroettner;Christin Seifert

  • A categorization approach to automated ontological function annotation.

    Karin Verspoor;Judith Cohn;Susan Mniszewski;Cliff Joslyn

  • High-precision biological event extraction with a concept recognizer

    K. Bretonnel Cohen;Karin Verspoor;Helen Johnson;Chris Roeder

  • Domain Adaption of Named Entity Recognition to Support Credit Risk Assessment

    Julio Cesar Salinas Alvarado;Karin Verspoor;Timothy Baldwin

  • Additional file 1 of An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T. Clark;Asma R. Bankapur

Frequent Co-Authors

Timothy Baldwin
Timothy Baldwin University of Melbourne
Justin Zobel
Justin Zobel University of Melbourne
Lawrence Hunter
Lawrence Hunter University of Colorado Denver
Antonio Jimeno Yepes
Antonio Jimeno Yepes RMIT University
K. Bretonnel Cohen
K. Bretonnel Cohen University of Colorado Denver
Trevor Cohn
Trevor Cohn University of Melbourne
Lawrence Cavedon
Lawrence Cavedon RMIT University
William A. Baumgartner
William A. Baumgartner Johns Hopkins University
Asa Ben-Hur
Asa Ben-Hur Colorado State University
Predrag Radivojac
Predrag Radivojac Northeastern 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 Computer Science in the USA opens the door to a variety of flexible online degrees and career pathways. Many students seek programs that combine quality education with affordability and speed. For example, pursuing an online mba cheap lets you build management skills without breaking the bank, setting you up for leadership roles in tech.

If you want to accelerate your studies, one year masters programs offer intensive curriculums that help you enter the workforce or seek promotions faster than traditional options. These degrees are designed for busy professionals and career changers looking to quickly upskill.

For those interested in maximizing return on investment, researching the best online degrees can help you target fields with strong job growth and high earning potential. Computer Science, data analytics, and IT are all featured prominently in these lists.

With artificial intelligence reshaping industries, specialized training is increasingly valuable. Enrolling in one of the ai degree programs online can prepare you for exciting roles in robotics, machine learning, and advanced data science—all from wherever you are in the world.

Best Scientists Citing Karin Verspoor

Trending Scientists