World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
93
Citations
42035
World Ranking
10711
National Ranking
5508

Lynn M. Schuchter 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 Lynn M. Schuchter 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: 308 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Lynn M. Schuchter 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 Lynn M. Schuchter 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: 93 D-Index — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Lynn M. Schuchter is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania in the United States. Their work primarily spans the fields of Medicine and Immunology and Microbiology, with a strong focus on Oncology within these domains. Schuchter's research includes significant contributions to cancer immunotherapy, immune response mechanisms, and melanoma management.

The main topics covered in Schuchter's research include:

  • Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • CAR-T cell therapy research
  • Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Immune Cell Function and Interaction
  • Melanoma and MAPK Pathways

In terms of subfields, their publications largely focus on:

  • Oncology
  • Immunology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • General Health Professions

Schuchter has published extensively, with frequent appearances in notable journals such as:

  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Annals of Oncology
  • Cell Reports
  • JAMA Oncology
  • Clinical Cancer Research

Their recent published papers include:

  • "Developmental Relationships of Four Exhausted CD8+ T Cell Subsets Reveals Underlying Transcriptional and Epigenetic Landscape Control Mechanisms" (2020, Immunity)
  • "Distinct Populations of Immune-Suppressive Macrophages Differentiate from Monocytic Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in Cancer" (2020, Cell Reports)
  • "Effect of Integrating Machine Learning Mortality Estimates With Behavioral Nudges to Clinicians on Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients With Cancer" (2020, JAMA Oncology)
  • "Association of Antibiotic Exposure With Survival and Toxicity in Patients With Melanoma Receiving Immunotherapy" (2020, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute)
  • "ICAM-1-mediated adhesion is a prerequisite for exosome-induced T cell suppression" (2022, Developmental Cell)

They have collaborated frequently with several researchers in the field, including:

  • Ravi K. Amaravadi
  • Tara C. Mitchell
  • Giorgos C. Karakousis
  • Xiaowei Xu
  • Alexander C. Huang

Best Publications

  • Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition in Melanoma with BRAF V600 Mutations

    Keith T. Flaherty;Jeffery R. Infante;Adil Daud;Rene Gonzalez

  • Exosomal PD-L1 Contributes to Immunosuppression and is Associated with anti-PD-1 Response

    Gang Chen;Alexander C. Huang;Wei Zhang;Wei Zhang;Gao Zhang

  • Survival in BRAF V600–Mutant Advanced Melanoma Treated with Vemurafenib

    Jeffrey A. Sosman;Kevin B. Kim;Lynn Schuchter;Rene Gonzalez

  • Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer

    Christina Twyman-Saint Victor;Andrew J. Rech;Amit Maity;Ramesh Rengan;Ramesh Rengan

  • T-cell invigoration to tumour burden ratio associated with anti-PD-1 response

    Alexander C. Huang;Michael A. Postow;Michael A. Postow;Robert J. Orlowski;Rosemarie Mick

  • TOX transcriptionally and epigenetically programs CD8 + T cell exhaustion

    Omar Khan;Josephine R. Giles;Sierra McDonald;Sasikanth Manne

  • Tumor Interferon Signaling Regulates a Multigenic Resistance Program to Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

    Joseph L. Benci;Bihui Xu;Yu Qiu;Tony J. Wu

  • Developmental Relationships of Four Exhausted CD8+ T Cell Subsets Reveals Underlying Transcriptional and Epigenetic Landscape Control Mechanisms

    Jean-Christophe Beltra;Sasikanth Manne;Mohamed S. Abdel-Hakeem;Makoto Kurachi

  • Phase III Multicenter Randomized Trial of the Dartmouth Regimen Versus Dacarbazine in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

    Paul B. Chapman;Lawrence H. Einhorn;Michael L. Meyers;Scott Saxman

  • Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline.

    Sandra L. Wong;Charles M. Balch;Patricia Hurley;Sanjiv S. Agarwala

  • Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a Phase II randomised discontinuation trial analysis

    T Eisen;T Ahmad;K T Flaherty;M Gore

  • American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Use of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy Protectants

    Martee L. Hensley;Karen L. Hagerty;Tarun Kewalramani;Daniel M. Green

  • Enhancing CD8 + T Cell Fatty Acid Catabolism within a Metabolically Challenging Tumor Microenvironment Increases the Efficacy of Melanoma Immunotherapy.

    Ying Zhang;Ying Zhang;Raj Kurupati;Ling Liu;Xiang Yang Zhou

  • A single dose of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade predicts clinical outcomes in resectable melanoma

    Alexander C. Huang;Robert J. Orlowski;Robert J. Orlowski;Xiaowei Xu;Rosemarie Mick

  • American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy protectants.

    Martee L. Hensley;Lynn M. Schuchter;Celeste Lindley;Neal J. Meropol

  • Targeting ER stress–induced autophagy overcomes BRAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma

    Xiao Hong Ma;Sheng Fu Piao;Souvik Dey;Quentin McAfee

  • Pharmacodynamic Effects and Mechanisms of Resistance to Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

    Kerstin Trunzer;Anna C. Pavlick;Lynn Schuchter;Rene Gonzalez

  • Combined MTOR and autophagy inhibition: Phase I trial of hydroxychloroquine and temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors and melanoma

    Reshma Rangwala;Yunyoung C. Chang;Janice Hu;Kenneth M. Algazy

  • Safety and Efficacy of Intratumoral Injections of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cells in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

    Julia Tchou;Yangbing Zhao;Bruce L Levine;Paul J Zhang

  • Phase I II M ulticenter R andomized T rial o f t he D artmouth Regimen V ersus D acarbazine i n P atients With M etastatic M elanoma

    Paul B. Chapman;Lawrence H. Einhorn;Michael L. Meyers;Scott Saxman

Frequent Co-Authors

Ravi K. Amaravadi
Ravi K. Amaravadi University of Pennsylvania
Xiaowei Xu
Xiaowei Xu University of Pennsylvania
Keith T. Flaherty
Keith T. Flaherty Harvard University
David E. Elder
David E. Elder Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Katherine L. Nathanson
Katherine L. Nathanson University of Pennsylvania
Wei Xu
Wei Xu Shenzhen University
Robert H. Vonderheide
Robert H. Vonderheide University of Pennsylvania
Rosemarie Mick
Rosemarie Mick University of Pennsylvania
Jeffrey A. Sosman
Jeffrey A. Sosman Northwestern University
Meenhard Herlyn
Meenhard Herlyn The Wistar Institute

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 a career in medicine doesn’t always follow a single path. Outside the traditional MD programs, a range of online healthcare degrees can prepare you for rewarding roles across the healthcare sector.

For example, aspiring nurses might wonder, do you have to take the teas test to get into nursing school? Some top institutions offer flexible entry routes for those looking to start a nursing career without standardized tests.

If you are interested in leadership and behind-the-scenes roles in healthcare, consider a healthcare administration degree online. This program emphasizes business, management, and policy-making within medical settings.

Licensed registered nurses wishing to advance their careers can pursue rn to fnp bridge programs, which provide a streamlined transition toward becoming a Family Nurse Practitioner through online study.

Alternatively, nutrition science offers growing opportunities for online learners. Earning an online degree nutrition can lead to careers in patient education, wellness coaching, or clinical nutrition.

These pathways offer flexibility, accessibility, and diverse career options—all while addressing the evolving demands of healthcare in the USA.

Best Scientists Citing Lynn M. Schuchter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles