World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Best Female Scientists
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Best Female Scientists

D-Index
109
Citations
34484
World Ranking
948
National Ranking
578

Medicine

D-Index
111
Citations
36509
World Ranking
5399
National Ranking
2911

Linda M. Zangwill 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 Linda M. Zangwill 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: 714 publications — 82nd percentile

82% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Linda M. Zangwill 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 Linda M. Zangwill 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: 111 D-Index — 74th percentile

74% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Best Female Scientists Award

Overview

Linda M. Zangwill is affiliated with the University of California, San Diego in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on ophthalmology, with a substantial contribution to medicine marked by 429 publications. The scientist's work spans key subfields including ophthalmology, radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, neurology, epidemiology, and molecular biology.

The main topics explored in their research include:

  • Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Retinal diseases and treatments
  • Retinal imaging and analysis
  • Corneal surgery and disorders
  • Retinal and optic conditions
  • Ophthalmology and visual impairment studies
  • Ophthalmology and eye disorders

Some frequent publication venues for the scientist are:

  • American Journal of Ophthalmology (40 publications)
  • Journal of Glaucoma (24 publications)
  • British Journal of Ophthalmology (19 publications)
  • Ophthalmology (13 publications)
  • Ophthalmology Glaucoma (13 publications)

Recent papers authored by Linda M. Zangwill illustrate their focus on glaucoma detection and retinal imaging techniques:

  • Detecting Glaucoma from Fundus Photographs Using Deep Learning without Convolutions, 2022, Ophthalmology Science
  • OCT Angiography Artifacts in Glaucoma, 2021, Ophthalmology
  • Development and clinical deployment of a smartphone-based visual field deep learning system for glaucoma detection, 2020, npj Digital Medicine
  • Effects of Study Population, Labeling and Training on Glaucoma Detection Using Deep Learning Algorithms, 2020, Translational Vision Science & Technology
  • Classification of Visual Field Abnormalities in Highly Myopic Eyes without Pathologic Change, 2022, Ophthalmology

Linda M. Zangwill has collaborated extensively with several researchers, including:

  • Robert N. Weinreb
  • Sasan Moghimi
  • Massimo A. Fazio
  • Christopher A. Girkin
  • Takashi Nishida

Best Publications

  • Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer, optic nerve head, and macular thickness measurements for glaucoma detection using optical coherence tomography

    Felipe A. Medeiros;Felipe A. Medeiros;Linda M. Zangwill;Christopher Bowd;Roberto M. Vessani

  • Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma.

    Felipe A. Medeiros;Linda M. Zangwill;Christopher Bowd;Robert N. Weinreb

  • Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function.

    Christopher Bowd;Linda M. Zangwill;Charles C. Berry;Eytan Z. Blumenthal

  • Scanning Laser Polarimetry to Measure the Nerve Fiber Layer of Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes

    Robert N. Weinreb;Sima Shakiba;Linda Zangwill

  • Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements by use of optical coherence tomography

    Eytan Z Blumenthal;Julia M Williams;Robert N Weinreb;Christopher A Girkin

  • The retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive, normal, and glaucomatous eyes with optical coherence tomography.

    Christopher Bowd;Robert N. Weinreb;Julia M. Williams;Linda M. Zangwill

  • Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph.

    Linda M. Zangwill;Christopher Bowd;Charles C. Berry;Julia Williams

  • Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Vessel Density in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucoma Eyes.

    Adeleh Yarmohammadi;Linda M. Zangwill;Alberto Diniz-Filho;Min Hee Suh

  • Relationship between Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Vessel Density and Severity of Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma.

    Adeleh Yarmohammadi;Linda M. Zangwill;Alberto Diniz-Filho;Min Hee Suh

  • Imaging of the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer: the effects of age, optic disc area, refractive error, and gender.

    Christopher Bowd;Linda M. Zangwill;Eytan Z. Blumenthal;Cristiana Vasile

  • Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy.

    Felipe A Medeiros;Pamela A Sample;Linda M Zangwill;Christopher Bowd

  • Primary open-angle glaucoma in blacks: a review.

    Lyne Racette;M.Roy Wilson;Linda M Zangwill;Robert N Weinreb

  • The African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES): Design and Baseline Data

    Pamela A. Sample;Christopher A. Girkin;Linda M. Zangwill;Sonia Jain

  • Diurnal intraocular pressure variations: an analysis of 690 diurnal curves.

    R. David;L. Zangwill;D. Briscoe;M. Dagan

  • Corneal Hysteresis as a Risk Factor for Glaucoma Progression: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

    Felipe A. Medeiros;Daniel Meira-Freitas;Daniel Meira-Freitas;Renato Lisboa;Renato Lisboa;Tung-Mei Kuang;Tung-Mei Kuang;Tung-Mei Kuang

  • Detection of early glaucomatous structural damage with confocal scanning laser tomography

    Renuka Bathija;Linda Zangwill;Charles C. Berry;Pamela A. Sample

  • Detection of Glaucoma With Scanning Laser Polarimetry

    Robert N. Weinreb;Linda Zangwill;Charles C. Berry;Renuka Bathija

  • Efficacy and Safety of Memantine Treatment for Reduction of Changes Associated with Experimental Glaucoma in Monkey, II: Structural Measures

    William A. Hare;Elizabeth WoldeMussie;Robert N. Weinreb;Hau Ton

  • Reproducibility of RTVue Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Optic Disc Measurements and Agreement with Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography Measurements

    Alberto O. González-García;Gianmarco Vizzeri;Christopher Bowd;Felipe A. Medeiros

  • Association Between Quantitative Nerve Fiber Layer Measurement and Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma

    Robert N. Weinreb;Sima Shakiba;Pamela A. Sample;Shah In Shahrokni

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert N. Weinreb
Robert N. Weinreb University of California, San Diego
Felipe A. Medeiros
Felipe A. Medeiros Duke University
Pamela A. Sample
Pamela A. Sample University of California, San Diego
Jeffrey M. Liebmann
Jeffrey M. Liebmann University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
Te-Won Lee
Te-Won Lee Qualcomm (United States)
Charles C. Berry
Charles C. Berry University of California, San Diego
Terrence J. Sejnowski
Terrence J. Sejnowski Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Jerome I. Rotter
Jerome I. Rotter UCLA Medical Center
Robert Ritch
Robert Ritch New York Eye and Ear Infirmary
Kent D. Taylor
Kent D. Taylor David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

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

Pursuing Medicine in the USA can open doors to many related healthcare careers and educational paths. For those interested in healthcare management or allied fields, there are several flexible and accessible online degree options.

If you are considering administrative roles, a degree in healthcare administration can provide you with the business and leadership skills needed to manage healthcare organizations. Meanwhile, those seeking practical entry points into healthcare can look to medical billing and coding schools with financial aid for training that leads directly to in-demand administrative positions.

Nursing remains a popular, rewarding path. Students who may not wish to take standardized entrance exams can explore nursing schools that don't require teas test for a more accessible way to enter the nursing field. Current nurses aiming to advance their practice can benefit from rn to fnp bridge programs, making career progression to nurse practitioner roles smoother and faster.

No matter your interests, these pathways offer promising alternatives and complement traditional medical studies in the USA.

Best Scientists Citing Linda M. Zangwill

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles