World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Mathew R. Williams

Mathew R. Williams

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
82
Citations
49328
World Ranking
15844
National Ranking
7974

Mathew R. Williams 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 Mathew R. Williams 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: 336 publications — 24th percentile

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

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

Mathew R. Williams 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 Mathew R. Williams 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: 82 D-Index — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mathew R. Williams is affiliated with New York University in the United States. Their research focuses primarily on medicine, with a substantial concentration in cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. The subfields of study include cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, epidemiology, surgery, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, and radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging.

Williams's work covers a range of topics related to cardiovascular health, notably:

  • Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
  • Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Aortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
  • Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
  • Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments

Their recent notable papers include:

  • Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement, 2020, New England Journal of Medicine
  • An atlas of healthy and injured cell states and niches in the human kidney, 2023, Nature
  • Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk, 2021, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Valves, 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Williams frequently publishes in the following venues:

  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions
  • Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine

Their frequent co-authors include:

  • Hasan Jilaihawi
  • Cezar Staniloae
  • Michael J. Mack
  • Homam Ibrahim
  • Martin B. Leon

Best Publications

  • Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients

    Craig R. Smith;Martin B. Leon;Michael J. Mack;D. Craig Miller

  • Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

    Martin B Leon;Craig R. Smith;Michael J. Mack;Michael J. Mack;Rajendra Makkar

  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients

    Michael J. Mack;Martin B. Leon;Vinod H. Thourani;Raj Makkar

  • Expression of VEGFR-2 and AC133 by circulating human CD34+ cells identifies a population of functional endothelial precursors

    Mario Peichev;Afzal J. Naiyer;Daniel Pereira;Zhenping Zhu

  • Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

    M. J. Reardon;N. M. Van Mieghem;J. J. Popma;N. S. Kleiman

  • Two-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

  • 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

    Michael J Mack;Martin B Leon;Craig R Smith;D Craig Miller

  • Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis

    Vinod H. Thourani;Susheel Kodali;Raj R. Makkar;Howard C. Herrmann

  • 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

    Samir R Kapadia;Martin B Leon;Raj R Makkar;E Murat Tuzcu

  • Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) Trial and Registry

    Tamim M. Nazif;José M. Dizon;Rebecca T. Hahn;Ke Xu

  • Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

    Raj R. Makkar;Vinod H. Thourani;Michael J. Mack;Susheel K. Kodali

  • Vascular Complications After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) Trial

    Philippe Généreux;John G. Webb;Lars G. Svensson;Susheel K. Kodali

  • The impact of frailty status on survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience.

    Philip Green;Abigail E. Woglom;Philippe Genereux;Benoit Daneault

  • Paravalvular Leak After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The New Achilles' Heel? A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

    Philippe Généreux;Stuart J. Head;Rebecca Hahn;Benoit Daneault

  • Paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Edwards sapien valve in the PARTNER trial: characterizing patients and impact on outcomes

    Susheel Kodali;Philippe Pibarot;Pamela S. Douglas;Mathew Williams

  • Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis A Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) Trial Analysis

    Howard C. Herrmann;Philippe Pibarot;Irene Hueter;Zachary M. Gertz

  • Controlled Trial of Budesonide–Formoterol as Needed for Mild Asthma

    Richard Beasley;Mark Holliday;Helen K. Reddel;Irene Braithwaite

  • Health-Related Quality of Life After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Results From the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) Trial (Cohort A)

    Matthew R. Reynolds;Elizabeth A. Magnuson;Kaijun Wang;Vinod H. Thourani

  • Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis

    Susheel Kodali;Vinod H. Thourani;Jonathon White;S. Chris Malaisrie

  • Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

Frequent Co-Authors

Susheel Kodali
Susheel Kodali Columbia University Medical Center
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Rebecca T. Hahn
Rebecca T. Hahn Columbia University Medical Center
Vinod H. Thourani
Vinod H. Thourani Georgetown University
Mehmet C. Oz
Mehmet C. Oz Columbia University
Samir R. Kapadia
Samir R. Kapadia Cleveland Clinic
Vasilis Babaliaros
Vasilis Babaliaros Emory University
Michael J. Mack
Michael J. Mack Scott & White Memorial Hospital
John G. Webb
John G. Webb University of British Columbia
Philippe Généreux
Philippe Généreux Morristown Medical Center

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 interested in a healthcare career but prefer alternative pathways to a traditional MD, there are numerous online options. Many professionals launch their careers from the comfort of home thanks to fully accredited programs tailored for working adults and career-changers.

For those drawn to medical administration or data, medical billing and coding schools online offer a fast track to in-demand administrative roles. Financial aid options make these programs especially accessible.

Prospective nurses may want to explore nursing schools that don't require teas, eliminating common testing barriers and allowing students to get started more quickly.

Ambitious professionals seeking leadership roles can consider online health administration programs. These flexible degrees help graduates qualify for supervisory roles in hospitals and clinics.

Registered nurses interested in advancement may choose rn to np programs online to earn advanced degrees, opening the door to nurse practitioner positions and higher salaries—often while continuing to work.

Best Scientists Citing Mathew R. Williams

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles