World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
36
Citations
4726
World Ranking
11352
National Ranking
211

Lucas J. van Vliet 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 Lucas J. van Vliet 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: 144 publications — 24th percentile

24% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Lucas J. van Vliet 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 Lucas J. van Vliet 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: 36 D-Index — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Lucas J. van Vliet is affiliated with Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Their research spans multiple domains within medicine and engineering, with a particular focus on radiology, nuclear medicine, imaging, and biomedical engineering. The scholar has also contributed to subfields such as ophthalmology, computer vision and pattern recognition, and biophysics.

Their work covers a variety of topics, including:

  • Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
  • Optical Coherence Tomography Applications
  • Corneal surgery and disorders
  • Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Corneal Surgery and Treatments
  • Optical measurement and interference techniques
  • Advanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques

Lucas J. van Vliet has published research in several journals and venues. Frequent publication venues include:

  • Biomedical Optics Express
  • Translational Vision Science & Technology
  • Scientific Reports
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)

Sample recent papers include:

  • Deep Learning for Assessing the Corneal Endothelium from Specular Microscopy Images up to 1 Year after Ultrathin-DSAEK Surgery, 2020, Translational Vision Science & Technology
  • DenseUNets with feedback non-local attention for the segmentation of specular microscopy images of the corneal endothelium with guttae, 2022, Scientific Reports
  • Analysis of attenuation coefficient estimation in Fourier-domain OCT of semi-infinite media, 2020, Biomedical Optics Express
  • An efficient method for multi-parameter mapping in quantitative MRI using B-spline interpolation, 2020, Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
  • Attenuation coefficient estimation in Fourier-domain OCT of multi-layered phantoms, 2021, Biomedical Optics Express

Lucas J. van Vliet collaborates frequently with several co-authors:

  • Koenraad A. Vermeer
  • Juan P. Vigueras-Guillén
  • Jeroen van Rooij
  • Hans G. Lemij
  • Bart T. H. van Dooren

Best Publications

  • Recursive implementation of the Gaussian filter

    Ian T. Young;Lucas J. van Vliet

  • Robust fusion of irregularly sampled data using adaptive normalized convolution

    Tuan Q. Pham;Lucas J. van Vliet;Klamer Schutte

  • Methods for CCD Camera Characterization

    James C. Mullikin;Lucas J. van Vliet;H. Netten;Frank R. Boddeke

  • FISH and chips: automation of fluorescent dot counting in interphase cell nuclei.

    Hans Netten;Ian T. Young;Lucas J. van Vliet;Hans J. Tanke

  • Image formation modeling in cryo-electron microscopy

    Miloš Vulović;Raimond B.G. Ravelli;Lucas J. van Vliet;Abraham J. Koster

  • A contour processing method for fast binary neighbourhood operations

    Lucas J. van Vliet;Ben J. H. Verwer

  • Image Registration Based on Autocorrelation of Local Structure

    Zhang Li;Dwarikanath Mahapatra;Jeroen A. W. Tielbeek;Jaap Stoker

  • Autofocusing in microscopy based on the OTF and sampling

    Frank R Boddeke;Lucas J van Vliet;Hans Netten;Ian T Young

  • An evaluation of automatic coronary artery calcium scoring methods with cardiac CT using the orCaScore framework

    Jelmer M. Wolterink;Tim Leiner;Bob D. De Vos;Jean Louis Coatrieux

  • Automatic segmentation, detection and quantification of coronary artery stenoses on CTA

    Rahil Shahzad;Hortense Kirişli;Coert Metz;Hui Tang;Hui Tang

  • Vessel Specific Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring. An Automatic System

    Rahil Shahzad;Rahil Shahzad;Theo van Walsum;Michiel Schaap;Alexia Rossi

  • The determination of relative path length as a measure for tortuosity in compacts using image analysis

    Yu San Wu;Lucas J. van Vliet;Henderik W. Frijlink;Kees van der Voort Maarschalk

  • Performance of Optimal Registration Estimators

    Tuan Quang Pham;Marijn Bezuijen;Lucas J. van Vliet;Klamer Schutte

  • Background estimation in nonlinear image restoration

    G.M.P. Van Kempen;L.J. Van Vliet

  • 3-D IMAGING, ANALYSIS AND MODELLING OF POROUS CEREAL PRODUCTS USING X-RAY MICROTOMOGRAPHY

    Gerard Van Dalen;Peter Nootenboom;Lucas J Van Vliet;Lennard Voortman

  • A new sharpness measure based on gaussian lines and edges

    Judith Dijk;Michael van Ginkel;Rutger J. van Asselt;Lucas J. van Vliet

  • An Automated System for the Detection and Classification of Retinal Changes Due to Red Lesions in Longitudinal Fundus Images

    Kedir M. Adal;Peter G. van Etten;Jose P. Martinez;Kenneth W. Rouwen

  • Multiframe Super-Resolution Reconstruction of Small Moving Objects

    Adam W M van Eekeren;Klamer Schutte;Lucas J van Vliet

  • Semiautomatic carotid lumen segmentation for quantification of lumen geometry in multispectral MRI.

    Hui Tang;Hui Tang;Theo van Walsum;Robbert S. van Onkelen;Reinhard Hameeteman

  • Detection of protrusions in curved folded surfaces applied to automated polyp detection in CT colonography

    Cees van Wijk;Vincent F. van Ravesteijn;Frank M. Vos;Roel Truyen

  • Automatic quantification of epicardial fat volume on non-enhanced cardiac CT scans using a multi-atlas segmentation approach

    Rahil Shahzad;Daniel Bos;Coert Metz;Alexia Rossi

Frequent Co-Authors

Wiro J. Niessen
Wiro J. Niessen University Medical Center Groningen
Jaap Stoker
Jaap Stoker University of Amsterdam
Stefan Klein
Stefan Klein Erasmus University Rotterdam
Aad van der Lugt
Aad van der Lugt Erasmus University Rotterdam
Jacqueline C.M. Witteman
Jacqueline C.M. Witteman Erasmus University Rotterdam
Kees Wapenaar
Kees Wapenaar Delft University of Technology
Thomas M. van Gulik
Thomas M. van Gulik University of Amsterdam
Raimond B. G. Ravelli
Raimond B. G. Ravelli Maastricht University
Alfred C. Schouten
Alfred C. Schouten Delft University of Technology

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 Computer Science in the USA, there are several flexible pathways to earning your degree online. For those looking to save money and time, cheap online degrees fast are becoming increasingly popular. These programs allow you to complete your coursework efficiently without breaking the bank.

Many institutions also offer support for students with varied academic backgrounds. For example, there are online colleges that accept 2.0 gpa, making higher education more accessible to a wider range of applicants.

Once you’ve earned your degree, a variety of career options become available. With a background in computer science, you could branch out or specialize—for example, by exploring what you can do with an environmental science degree if your interests cross over into environmental technology.

For those eager to enter the tech workforce quickly, several universities offer a fast track computer science degree online. These accelerated degrees are ideal for motivated learners seeking a quicker career launch.

Best Scientists Citing Lucas J. van Vliet

Trending Scientists