World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
106
Citations
58733
World Ranking
6386
National Ranking
179

Kenneth J. O'Byrne 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 Kenneth J. O'Byrne 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: 897 publications — 91st percentile

91% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Kenneth J. O'Byrne 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 Kenneth J. O'Byrne 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: 106 D-Index — 69th percentile

69% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Kenneth J. O'Byrne is affiliated with Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Their research primarily focuses on fields such as Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, with significant contributions in Oncology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, and Molecular Biology. Their work integrates cross-disciplinary approaches within Cancer Research and Immunology subfields.

The scientist's research addresses topics including Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers, Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics, Cancer Cells and Metastasis, DNA Repair Mechanisms, Immune cells in cancer, and Cancer Research and Treatments.

O'Byrne has published articles in frequent venues such as the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Cancer Research, and Lung Cancer.

Recent papers by Kenneth J. O'Byrne include:

  • Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy, 2022, Current Oncology
  • PARP Inhibitors: Clinical Relevance, Mechanisms of Action and Tumor Resistance, 2020, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
  • Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227, 2022, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial, 2021, Journal of Thoracic Oncology
  • Understanding the tumor microenvironment for effective immunotherapy, 2020, Medicinal Research Reviews

They regularly collaborate with coauthors including Arutha Kulasinghe, James Monkman, Derek J. Richard, Rahul Ladwa, and Mark N. Adams.

Best Publications

  • Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer

    Alice T. Shaw;Dong Wan Kim;Kazuhiko Nakagawa;Takashi Seto

  • Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations

    Lecia V. Sequist;James Chih-Hsin Yang;Nobuyuki Yamamoto;Kenneth John O'Byrne

  • Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden

    Matthew D. Hellmann;Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu;Adam Pluzanski;Jong Seok Lee

  • Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

    Matthew D Hellmann;Luis Paz-Ares;Reyes Bernabe Caro;Bogdan Zurawski

  • Randomized Phase II Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Combined With Docetaxel in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Administered As First-Line Treatment: The M77001 Study Group

    Michael Marty;Francesco Cognetti;Dominique Maraninchi;Raymond Snyder

  • Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial.

    Robert Pirker;Jose R. Pereira;Aleksandra Szczesna;Joachim von Pawel

  • Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

    James Chih Hsin Yang;Yi Long Wu;Martin Schuler;Martin Sebastian

  • Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

    Keunchil Park;Eng Huat Tan;Ken O'Byrne;Li Zhang

  • EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study

    Robert Pirker;Jose R. Pereira;Joachim Von Pawel;Maciej Krzakowski

  • Chronic immune activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy.

    Kenneth J. O'Byrne;A. G. Dalgleish

  • Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging As a Biomarker for the Pharmacological Response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an Inhibitor of the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinases, in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer and Liver Metastases: Results From Two Phase I Studies

    Bruno Morgan;Anne L. Thomas;Joachim Drevs;Juergen Hennig

  • Combination Therapy With Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors (HDACi) for the Treatment of Cancer: Achieving the Full Therapeutic Potential of HDACi

    Amila Suraweera;Kenneth J. O’Byrne;Kenneth J. O’Byrne;Derek J. Richard

  • Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study

    Tom Treasure;Loic Lang-Lazdunski;David Waller;Judith M Bliss

  • 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer consensus on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

    J. Vansteenkiste;L. Crinò;C. Dooms;J. Y. Douillard

  • First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (CheckMate 568): Outcomes by Programmed Death Ligand 1 and Tumor Mutational Burden as Biomarkers.

    Neal Ready;Matthew D. Hellmann;Mark M. Awad;Gregory A. Otterson

  • Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial.

    L. Paz-Ares;E. H. Tan;K. O'Byrne;L. Zhang

  • PARP Inhibitors: Clinical Relevance, Mechanisms of Action and Tumor Resistance.

    Maddison Rose;Joshua T. Burgess;Kenneth O’Byrne;Kenneth O’Byrne;Derek J. Richard

  • 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference in Lung Cancer: locally advanced stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

    W.E.E. Eberhardt;D. De Ruysscher;W. Weder;C. Le Péchoux

  • Prognostic factors for malignant mesothelioma in 142 patients: validation of CALGB and EORTC prognostic scoring systems

    J G Edwards;K R Abrams;J N Leverment;T J Spyt

  • Osimertinib or platinum–pemetrexed in EGFR T790M–positive lung cancer

    T.S. Mok;Y.-L. Wu;M.-J. Ahn;M.C. Garassino

Frequent Co-Authors

Tony Mok
Tony Mok Chinese University of Hong Kong
Luis Paz-Ares
Luis Paz-Ares Complutense University of Madrid
William P. Steward
William P. Steward University of Leicester
Michael Boyer
Michael Boyer University of Utah
James Chih-Hsin Yang
James Chih-Hsin Yang National Taiwan University
Lecia V. Sequist
Lecia V. Sequist Harvard University
John V. Reynolds
John V. Reynolds Trinity College Dublin
Suresh S. Ramalingam
Suresh S. Ramalingam Emory University
Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani
Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani University of Technology Sydney
Yi-Long Wu
Yi-Long Wu Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital

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 studying Medicine in the USA, there are many related online degree options and career paths worth exploring. Pursuing a health administration degree is an excellent way to build foundational skills in leadership, budgeting, and healthcare systems—all highly valued in today’s medical field.

For those seeking advanced roles, understanding the cost of MHA degree programs can help you plan your investment in a master’s-level healthcare administration career. Similarly, doctoral-level credentials can expand your opportunities, especially with the growing demand for nursing leaders. Considering the cheapest DNP program options ensures you can advance in nursing without undue financial burden.

Pharmacists are also in demand, and online Pharm D online programs allow for greater flexibility and affordability. Exploring these alternative and complementary career pathways can help you reach your healthcare goals, maintain work-life balance, and manage educational costs effectively.

Best Scientists Citing Kenneth J. O'Byrne

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles