World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

Mary E. Charlson 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 Mary E. Charlson 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+

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

Mary E. Charlson 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 Mary E. Charlson 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+

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • Member of the Association of American Physicians

Overview

Mary E. Charlson is affiliated with Cornell University in the United States. Their research spans primarily the field of Medicine, with significant contributions across subfields including Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, General Health Professions, Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Surgery, and Psychiatry and Mental Health.

Their scholarly work frequently addresses topics such as Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments, Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes, Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments, Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare, Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare, Social Media in Health Education, and scientometrics and bibliometrics research.

Among recent publications authored or co-authored by Mary E. Charlson are:

  • Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, 2021, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
  • The Impact of Social and Clinical Complexity on Diabetes Control Measures, 2020, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
  • Examining the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and citation count in the gynecologic oncology literature: Does it have an impact?, 2021, Gynecologic Oncology Reports
  • Methodologic Considerations on Four Cardiovascular Interventions Trials With Contradictory Results, 2020, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
  • The Challenge of Estimating Treatment Effects in Cardiac Surgery, 2021, JAMA Cardiology

Repeated collaborations are evident with several co-authors, including Mario Gaudino, Danilo Carrozzino, Chiara Patierno, Jenny Guidi, and Carmen Berrocal Montiel.

Publication venues that have featured their work multiple times are:

  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
  • Gynecologic Oncology Reports
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
  • JAMA Cardiology

Mary E. Charlson holds membership in the Association of American Physicians.

Best Publications

  • A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation☆

    Mary E. Charlson;Peter Pompei;Kathy L. Ales;C.Ronald MacKenzie

  • Validation of a combined comorbidity index.

    Mary Charlson;Ted P. Szatrowski;Ted P. Szatrowski;Janey Peterson;Janey Peterson;Jeffrey Gold

  • 'Vascular depression' hypothesis.

    George S. Alexopoulos;Barnett S. Meyers;Robert C. Young;Scott Campbell

  • From ideas to efficacy: The ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases.

    Susan M. Czajkowski;Lynda H. Powell;Nancy Adler;Sylvie Naar-King

  • The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients

    Mary E. Charlson;Robert E. Charlson;Janey C. Peterson;Spyridon S. Marinopoulos

  • The mortality of elder mistreatment.

    Mark S. Lachs;Christianna S. Williams;Shelley O'Brien;Karl A. Pillemer

  • Clinically Defined Vascular Depression

    George S. Alexopoulos;Barnett S. Meyers;Robert C. Young;Tatsu Kakuma

  • Supervised fitness walking in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A randomized, controlled trial.

    Kovar Pa;Allegrante Jp;MacKenzie Cr;Peterson Mg

  • Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification

    Gordon H. Guyatt;Richard A. Deyo;Mary Charlson;Mark N. Levine

  • Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance consensus statement on the unmet needs in diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders in late life.

    Dennis S. Charney;Charles F. Reynolds;Lydia Lewis;Barry D. Lebowitz

  • Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial.

    Pamela Williams-Russo;Nigel E. Sharrock;Steven Mattis;Ted P. Szatrowski

  • Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty

    Carol A. Mancuso;Eduardo A. Salvati;Norman A. Johanson;Margaret G.E. Peterson

  • Improvement of outcomes after coronary artery bypass. A randomized trial comparing intraoperative high versus low mean arterial pressure

    Jeffrey P. Gold;Mary E. Charlson;Pamela Williams-Russo;Ted P. Szatrowski

  • Post-operative delirium: predictors and prognosis in elderly orthopedic patients.

    Pamela Williams-Russo;Barbara L. Urquhart;Nigel E. Sharrock;Mary E. Charlson

  • Assessing illness severity: does clinical judgment work?

    Mary E. Charlson;Frederic L. Sax;C.Ronald MacKenzie;Suzanne D. Fields

  • Cerebral emboli detected during bypass surgery are associated with clamp removal.

    D. Barbut;R. B. Hinton;T. P. Szatrowski;G. S. Hartman

  • Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: prospective study on 616 patients.

    Koianka Trencheva;Kevin P. Morrissey;Martin Wells;Carol A. Mancuso

  • Development and evaluation of a medication adherence self-efficacy scale in hypertensive African-American patients.

    Gbenga Ogedegbe;Carol A Mancuso;Carol A Mancuso;John P Allegrante;Mary E Charlson

  • Depression and Service Utilization in Elderly Primary Care Patients

    M. Philip Luber;Barnett S. Meyers;Pamela G. Williams-Russo;James P. Hollenberg

  • Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation.

    M E Charlson;R I Horwitz

Frequent Co-Authors

Martin T. Wells
Martin T. Wells Cornell University
John P. Allegrante
John P. Allegrante Columbia University
Alice M. Isen
Alice M. Isen Cornell University
Jared B. Jobe
Jared B. Jobe National Institutes of Health
Alvan R. Feinstein
Alvan R. Feinstein Yale University
George S. Alexopoulos
George S. Alexopoulos Cornell University
Stephen E. Fremes
Stephen E. Fremes University of Toronto
Elaine Wethington
Elaine Wethington Cornell University
Carol M. Devine
Carol M. Devine Cornell University
Charles E. McCulloch
Charles E. McCulloch University of California, San Francisco

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

For students considering Medicine in the USA, there are flexible online degree options that can open doors to diverse medical careers. For nurses seeking leadership roles or advanced skills, finding the cheapest dnp programs online allows you to earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice without the high costs often associated with advanced degrees.

Registered nurses wanting to boost their qualifications often look into the average cost of rn to bsn programs to discover affordable pathways for earning a Bachelor of Science in Nursing online.

For those who hold a bachelor's degree in another field, msn direct entry programs online offer a fast track to become a registered nurse and advance in the healthcare sector.

If you're new to nursing and need an accessible entry point, exploring online adn programs for non nurses provides information on programs with a less competitive admission process and shorter time to graduation.

With various online degree options, aspiring healthcare professionals have more ways than ever to launch or advance their careers in medicine.

Best Scientists Citing Mary E. Charlson

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles