World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
32
Citations
6496
World Ranking
12941
National Ranking
244

Marco Loog 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 Marco Loog 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: 201 publications — 47th percentile

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

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

Marco Loog 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 Marco Loog 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: 32 D-Index — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Marco Loog is a researcher affiliated with Radboud University in the Netherlands. Their work spans numerous publications primarily in the field of computer science, with a specific focus on artificial intelligence and machine learning. The breadth of their research includes subfields such as computer vision and pattern recognition, molecular biology, cancer research, and computational theory and mathematics.

The scientist's research topics cover multiple areas within machine learning and data analysis. Key topics include machine learning and data classification, machine learning algorithms, domain adaptation and few-shot learning, anomaly detection techniques and applications, cancer genomics and diagnostics, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), and cell image analysis techniques.

Marco Loog's publication record features numerous articles, including recent papers such as:

  • The Shape of Learning Curves: A Review, 2022, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
  • Predicting patient response with models trained on cell lines and patient-derived xenografts by nonlinear transfer learning, 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Improved Generalization in Semi-Supervised Learning: A Survey of Theoretical Results, 2022, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
  • Seismic inversion with deep learning, 2021, Computational Geosciences
  • Resolution Learning in Deep Convolutional Networks Using Scale-Space Theory, 2021, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

Their frequent coauthors include Tom J. Viering, Soufiane Mourragui, Lodewyk F.A. Wessels, Alexander Mey, and David M. J. Tax. This collaboration network highlights an engaged research environment within related topics and methods.

Marco Loog has contributed regularly to prominent publication venues, with a notable presence in arXiv (Cornell University), bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Computational Geosciences.

The profile of Marco Loog reflects a focused engagement in the interdisciplinary application of machine learning, encompassing both theoretical advancements and applied methodologies in areas intersecting biology, medicine, and computational sciences.

Best Publications

  • Comparative study of retinal vessel segmentation methods on a new publicly available database

    Meindert Niemeijer;Meindert Niemeijer;Joes Staal;Bram van Ginneken;Marco Loog

  • Multiclass linear dimension reduction by weighted pairwise Fisher criteria

    M. Loog;R.P.W. Duin;R. Haeb-Umbach

  • A Review of Domain Adaptation without Target Labels

    Unknown

  • Linear dimensionality reduction via a heteroscedastic extension of LDA: the Chernoff criterion

    R.P.W. Duin;M. Loog

  • Quantitative Comparison of Spot Detection Methods in Fluorescence Microscopy

    I. Smal;M. Loog;W. Niessen;E. Meijering

  • A computer-aided diagnosis system for detection of lung nodules in chest radiographs with an evaluation on a public database.

    Arnold M.R. Schilham;Bram van Ginneken;Marco Loog

  • Deep Learning and Data Labeling for Medical Applications

    Gustavo Carneiro;Diana Mateus;Loïc Peter;Andrew Bradley

  • On Combining Computer-Aided Detection Systems

    Meindert Niemeijer;Marco Loog;Michael David Abràmoff;Max A Viergever

  • Multiple instance learning with bag dissimilarities

    Veronika Cheplygina;David M.J. Tax;Marco Loog

  • A benchmark and comparison of active learning for logistic regression

    Unknown

  • Segmentation of the posterior ribs in chest radiographs using iterated contextual pixel classification

    M. Loog;B. Ginneken

  • PRECISE: a domain adaptation approach to transfer predictors of drug response from pre-clinical models to tumors.

    Soufiane Mourragui;Soufiane Mourragui;Marco Loog;Marco Loog;Mark A van de Wiel;Mark A van de Wiel;Marcel J T Reinders;Marcel J T Reinders

  • Multi-spectral video endoscopy system for the detection of cancerous tissue

    Raimund Leitner;Martin De Biasio;Thomas Arnold;Cuong Viet Dinh

  • Local Fisher embedding

    D. de Ridder;M. Loog;M.J.T. Reinders

  • On the Behavior of Spatial Critical Points under Gaussian Blurring. A Folklore Theorem and Scale-Space Constraints

    Marco Loog;Johannes Jisse Duistermaat;Luc Florack

  • A variance maximization criterion for active learning

    Unknown

  • Contrastive Pessimistic Likelihood Estimation for Semi-Supervised Classification

    Unknown

  • Active learning using uncertainty information

    Unknown

  • Multiple-instance learning as a classifier combining problem

    Yan Li;David M. J. Tax;Robert P. W. Duin;Marco Loog

  • Dissimilarity-Based Ensembles for Multiple Instance Learning

    Veronika Cheplygina;David M. J. Tax;Marco Loog

  • Feature-level domain adaptation

    Wouter M. Kouw;Laurens J. P. Van Der Maaten;Jesse H. Krijthe;Marco Loog

  • Breast tissue density measure

    Jakob Raundahl;Marco Loog;Mads Nielsen

  • Single- vs. multiple-instance classification

    Ethem Alpaydın;Veronika Cheplygina;Marco Loog;David M.J. Tax

  • On classification with bags, groups and sets

    Veronika Cheplygina;David M.J. Tax;Marco Loog

  • Early diagnosis of dementia based on intersubject whole-brain dissimilarities

    S. Klein;M. Loog;F. van der Lijn;T. den Heijer

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert P. W. Duin
Robert P. W. Duin Delft University of Technology
Mads Nielsen
Mads Nielsen University of Copenhagen
David M. J. Tax
David M. J. Tax Delft University of Technology
Marleen de Bruijne
Marleen de Bruijne Erasmus University Rotterdam
De-Shuang Huang
De-Shuang Huang Tongji University
Morten A. Karsdal
Morten A. Karsdal University of Southern Denmark
Marcel J. T. Reinders
Marcel J. T. Reinders Delft University of Technology
Fabio Roli
Fabio Roli University of Genoa
Christian Igel
Christian Igel University of Copenhagen
Paolo Brambilla
Paolo Brambilla University of Milan

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

Choosing the right educational pathway in Computer Science goes beyond traditional on-campus programs. For those needing flexibility, online associates degrees are an excellent starting point. They offer foundational skills and can lead to entry-level positions or further study.

Affordability and speed are often key concerns. Luckily, there are many cheap online degrees fast available for students eager to enter the tech workforce quickly, without the burden of high tuition costs.

Academic history can also play a role in admissions. For those with less-than-perfect transcripts, consider a college that accepts low gpa to get started on your computer science journey. Many reputable institutions offer supportive environments for all learners.

Finally, a computer science background can pave the way for technology careers across various sectors, even in fields like sustainability and ecology. If you’re curious about options, explore what can you do with an environmental science major for insights into interdisciplinary career paths.

Best Scientists Citing Marco Loog

Trending Scientists