World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
55
Citations
9756
World Ranking
4385
National Ranking
2044

Lawrence Hunter 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 Lawrence Hunter 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: 250 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: 560 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: 424 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 378 scientists 262–271 publications: 300 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: 282 publications — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Lawrence Hunter 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 Lawrence Hunter sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 984 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 969 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 765 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 517 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: 55 D-Index — 71st percentile

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

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

Overview

Lawrence Hunter is affiliated with the University of Colorado Denver in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields with a focus on Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology as well as Computer Science. The scientist's work involves significant contributions to the subfields of Molecular Biology, Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Genetics, and Information Systems and Management.

Their research topics include Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies, Topic Modeling, Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks, Semantic Web and Ontologies, Natural Language Processing Techniques, Computational Drug Discovery Methods, and Genomics and Rare Diseases.

Hunter has co-authored extensively with several frequent collaborators, including Tiffany J. Callahan, William A. Baumgartner, Michael G. Kahn, Nicole Vasilevsky, and Tellen D. Bennett.

The scientist's publications appear predominantly in venues such as Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), arXiv (Cornell University), bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Scientific Reports, and UNC Libraries.

Significant recent papers authored or co-authored by Lawrence Hunter include:

  • An open source knowledge graph ecosystem for the life sciences, 2024, Scientific Data
  • A Framework for Automated Construction of Heterogeneous Large-Scale Biomedical Knowledge Graphs, 2020, bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • BETA: a comprehensive benchmark for computational drug-target prediction, 2022, Briefings in Bioinformatics
  • Ontologizing health systems data at scale: making translational discovery a reality, 2023, npj Digital Medicine
  • Examining linguistic shifts between preprints and publications, 2022, PLoS Biology

Best Publications

  • EDGAR: Extraction of Drugs, Genes And Relations from the Biomedical Literature

    Thomas C. Rindflesch;Lorraine Tanabe;John N. Weinstein;Lawrence Hunter

  • Overview of BioCreative II gene mention recognition

    Larry Smith;Lorraine K Tanabe;Rie Johnson nee Ando;Cheng-Ju Kuo

  • Biomedical language processing: what's beyond PubMed?

    Lawrence Hunter;K. Bretonnel Cohen

  • Getting started in text mining.

    K Bretonnel Cohen;Lawrence E Hunter

  • MedMiner: an Internet text-mining tool for biomedical information, with application to gene expression profiling.

    L. Tanabe;U. Scherf;L. H. Smith;J. K. Lee

  • Manual curation is not sufficient for annotation of genomic databases

    William A. Baumgartner;K. Bretonnel Cohen;Lynne M. Fox;George Acquaah-Mensah

  • AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline

    Casimir A Kulikowski;Edward H Shortliffe;Leanne M Currie;Peter L Elkin

  • Concept annotation in the CRAFT corpus

    Michael Bada;Miriam Eckert;Donald Evans;Kristin Garcia

  • Transcending inductive category formation in learning

    Roger C. Schank;Gregg C. Collins;Lawrence E. Hunter

  • Artificial intelligence and molecular biology

    Lawrence Hunter

  • OpenDMAP: an open source, ontology-driven concept analysis engine, with applications to capturing knowledge regarding protein transport, protein interactions and cell-type-specific gene expression.

    Lawrence Hunter;Zhiyong Lu;James Firby;William A Baumgartner

  • MutationFinder: a high-performance system for extracting point mutation mentions from text

    J. Gregory Caporaso;William A. Baumgartner;David A. Randolph;K. Bretonnel Cohen

  • 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 compositional structure of Gene Ontology terms

    P V Ogren;K B Cohen;G K Acquaah-Mensah;J Eberlein

  • Extracting Molecular Binding Relationships from Biomedical Text

    Thomas C. Rindflesch;Jayant V. Rajan;Lawrence Hunter

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

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

  • Natural Language Processing and Systems Biology

    K. Bretonnel Cohen;Lawrence Hunter

  • Mining molecular binding terminology from biomedical text.

    Thomas C. Rindflesch;Lawrence Hunter;Alan R. Aronson

  • 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

  • GEST: a gene expression search tool based on a novel Bayesian similarity metric.

    Lawrence Hunter;Ronald C. Taylor;Sonia M. Leach;Richard Simon

  • GeneRIF QUALITY ASSURANCE AS SUMMARY REVISION

    Zhiyong Lu;K. Bretonnel Cohen;Lawrence Hunter

  • Biocomputing '97 - Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium

    Russ B. Altman;A. Keith Dunker;Lawrence Hunter;Tiffany A. Murray

Frequent Co-Authors

K. Bretonnel Cohen
K. Bretonnel Cohen University of Colorado Denver
Karin Verspoor
Karin Verspoor RMIT University
Russ B. Altman
Russ B. Altman Stanford University
Teri E. Klein
Teri E. Klein Stanford University
Martha Palmer
Martha Palmer University of Colorado Boulder
J. Gregory Caporaso
J. Gregory Caporaso Northern Arizona University
Melissa A. Haendel
Melissa A. Haendel University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
Zhiyong Lu
Zhiyong Lu National Institutes of Health
A. Keith Dunker
A. Keith Dunker Indiana University
David J. States
David J. States University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

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

Studying Computer Science in the USA opens multiple exciting pathways, both in terms of further education and varied career prospects. Many students consider pursuing specialized fields where digital skills are in high demand. For instance, environmental science is increasingly reliant on data and computational tools, and you may want to explore what jobs can you get with an environmental science degree if you’re interested in combining tech with environmental impact.

If you want to fast-track your education, online learning platforms now offer flexible accelerated computer science degree online options. These programs can reduce the time to graduation, enabling you to enter the workforce sooner.

Beyond Computer Science, engineering continues to be a popular choice. Those drawn to environmental applications may benefit from considering an environmental engineering online degree. Likewise, if cost is a concern, you can explore the mechanical engineering cost of education to make an informed choice.

Best Scientists Citing Lawrence Hunter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles