World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 96 9566 8978 4929 4557 368 38460

Neal F. Kassell publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Neal F. Kassell between 1964 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Neal F. Kassell published across 62 years, from 1964 to 2025, averaging 6 papers a year. Output peaked at 23 publications in 1984. 2 of the 375 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1964 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 23. Peak 23 publications in 1984. 1964: 3 publications 1965: 2 publications 1966: 2 publications 1967: 0 publications 1968: 1 publication 1969: 1 publication 1970: 0 publications 1971: 0 publications 1972: 0 publications 1973: 0 publications 1974: 0 publications 1975: 0 publications 1976: 1 publication 1977: 0 publications 1978: 0 publications 1979: 4 publications 1980: 4 publications 1981: 10 publications 1982: 12 publications 1983: 8 publications 1984: 23 publications 1985: 12 publications 1986: 6 publications 1987: 6 publications 1988: 10 publications 1989: 13 publications 1990: 8 publications 1991: 7 publications 1992: 8 publications 1993: 21 publications 1994: 18 publications 1995: 17 publications 1996: 16 publications 1997: 20 publications 1998: 15 publications 1999: 6 publications 2000: 8 publications 2001: 6 publications 2002: 8 publications 2003: 9 publications 2004: 4 publications 2005: 7 publications 2006: 6 publications 2007: 5 publications 2008: 10 publications 2009: 11 publications 2010: 6 publications 2011: 3 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 9 publications 2014: 13 publications 2015: 5 publications 2016: 1 publication 2017: 1 publication 2018: 0 publications 2019: 1 publication 2020: 0 publications 2021: 0 publications 2022: 0 publications 2023: 0 publications 2024: 1 publication 2025: 1 publication
1964 2025

375 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Neal F. Kassell: publications per year, 1964 to 2025
Year Publications
1964 3
1965 2
1966 2
1967 0
1968 1
1969 1
1970 0
1971 0
1972 0
1973 0
1974 0
1975 0
1976 1
1977 0
1978 0
1979 4
1980 4
1981 10
1982 12
1983 8
1984 23
1985 12
1986 6
1987 6
1988 10
1989 13
1990 8
1991 7
1992 8
1993 21
1994 18
1995 17
1996 16
1997 20
1998 15
1999 6
2000 8
2001 6
2002 8
2003 9
2004 4
2005 7
2006 6
2007 5
2008 10
2009 11
2010 6
2011 3
2012 6
2013 9
2014 13
2015 5
2016 1
2017 1
2018 0
2019 1
2020 0
2021 0
2022 0
2023 0
2024 1
2025 1
Total 375
Download as CSV

Neal F. Kassell 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 Neal F. Kassell sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 361–380 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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: 610 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
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 368 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838 368
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Neal F. Kassell 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 Neal F. Kassell sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 96–97 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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: 399 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
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 96 D-Index — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779 96
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Neal F. Kassell is affiliated with the Focused Ultrasound Foundation in the United States. Their research primarily involves the application and development of focused ultrasound techniques, with significant contributions to the fields of medicine and engineering.

The scientist's work spans several main fields of study: medicine and engineering. Within these, their research particularly focuses on subfields such as biomedical engineering, radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, neurology, and health informatics.

Key research topics covered in their publications include ultrasound and hyperthermia applications, neurological disorders and treatments, advanced MRI techniques and applications, biomedical and engineering education, radiomics and machine learning in medical imaging, and artificial intelligence in healthcare and education.

Neal F. Kassell has contributed to multiple recent papers, including:

  • Future Directions of MR-guided Focused Ultrasound, 2024, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America
  • Focused ultrasound in neuro-oncology: the role of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation in driving adoption and innovation, 2021, Journal of Neuro-Oncology
  • Correction to: Focused ultrasound in neuro-oncology: the role of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation in driving adoption and innovation, 2021, Journal of Neuro-Oncology

The most frequent co-authors collaborating with Neal F. Kassell include Emily C. Whipple, Camille A. Favero, Dayton Grogan, Timour Abduhalikov, and Shayan Moosa.

Neal F. Kassell's publications are often featured in the following venues:

  • Journal of Neuro-Oncology
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America

Best Publications

  • The International Cooperative Study on the Timing of Aneurysm Surgery. Part 1 Overall management results

    Kassell Nf;Torner Jc;Haley Ec;Jane Ja

  • Unruptured intracranial aneurysms - Risk of rupture and risks of surgical intervention

    D. Wiebers;J. Whisnant;G. Forbes;I. Meissner

  • The International Cooperative Study on the Timing of Aneurysm Surgery. Part 2: Surgical results.

    Kassell Nf;Torner Jc;Jane Ja;Haley Ec

  • A universal subarachnoid hemorrhage scale: report of a committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies.

    G M Teasdale;C G Drake;W Hunt;N Kassell

  • Treatment of Ischemic Deficits from Vasospasm with Intravascular Volume Expansion and Induced Arterial Hypertension

    Neal F. Kassell;Sydney J. Peerless;Quentin J. Durward;David W. Beck

  • Clazosentan to overcome neurological ischemia and infarction occurring after subarachnoid hemorrhage (CONSCIOUS-1): randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 dose-finding trial.

    R. Loch Macdonald;Neal F. Kassell;Stephan Mayer;Daniel Ruefenacht

  • Medical complications of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A report of the multicenter, cooperative aneurysm study

    Solenski Nj;Haley Ec;Kassell Nf;Kongable G

  • Clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage undergoing surgical clipping: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (CONSCIOUS-2)

    R Loch Macdonald;Randall T Higashida;Emanuela Keller;Stephan A Mayer

  • Passive real-world interface props for neurosurgical visualization

    Ken Hinckley;Randy Pausch;John C. Goble;Neal F. Kassell

  • Cerebral vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage: putative role of inflammation.

    Aaron S Dumont;Randall J Dumont;Michael M Chow;Chi-Lung Lin

  • Amnesia Following Basal Forebrain Lesions

    Antonio R. Damasio;Neill R. Graff-Radford;Paul J. Eslinger;Hanna Damasio

  • CEREBRAL VASOMOTOR PARALYSIS PRODUCED BY INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION.

    Thomas W. Langfitt;James D. Weinstein;Neal F. Kassell

  • Randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial of tirilazad mesylate in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cooperative study in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand

    N. F. Kassell;E. C. Haley;C. Apperson-Hansen;W. M. Alves

  • Age and outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: why do older patients fare worse?

    Giuseppe Lanzino;Neal F. Kassell;Teresa P. Germanson;Gail L. Kongable

  • A randomized controlled trial of high-dose intravenous nicardipine in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A report of the Cooperative Aneurysm Study.

    Haley Ec;Kassell Nf;Torner Jc

  • Sensitivity and specificity of transcranial Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of vasospasm following subarachnoid hemorrhage

    M. A. Sloan;E. C. Haley;N. F. Kassell;M. L. Henry

  • Randomized Trial of Clazosentan in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Undergoing Endovascular Coiling

    R. Loch Macdonald;Randall T. Higashida;Emanuela Keller;Stephan A. Mayer

  • Timing of aneurysm surgery.

    N F Kassell;C G Drake

  • Size of intracranial aneurysms.

    Neal F. Kassell;James C. Torner

  • Double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled study of high-dose tirilazad mesylate in women with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Part II. A cooperative study in North America

    Giuseppe Lanzino;Neal F. Kassell

Frequent Co-Authors

Kevin S. Lee
Kevin S. Lee University of Virginia
Aaron S. Dumont
Aaron S. Dumont Tulane University
James C. Torner
James C. Torner University of Iowa
Harold P. Adams
Harold P. Adams University of Iowa
Jason P. Sheehan
Jason P. Sheehan University of Virginia
Stephan A. Mayer
Stephan A. Mayer New York Medical College
Randy Pausch
Randy Pausch Carnegie Mellon University
Ken Hinckley
Ken Hinckley Microsoft (United States)
R. Loch Macdonald
R. Loch Macdonald University of Toronto

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

Pursuing a career in Medicine doesn’t just mean becoming a doctor. There are several related online degrees and career pathways that can help you enter the healthcare field from different angles. Many students begin their journey by looking into accredited medical billing and coding schools with financial aid, a practical option for those interested in the administrative side of healthcare. These programs are flexible, often fully online, and open doors to jobs in hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies.

For those who want to start patient care roles quickly, nursing programs without teas or HESI exam requirements provide an accessible route to becoming a Registered Nurse, making entry less stressful for students.

Healthcare leadership is another growing field. An healthcare administration degree online accredited prepares graduates to manage hospitals and healthcare facilities, with accelerated options for faster completion.

Current RNs seeking to advance can opt for rn to np bridge programs, bridging the gap to nurse practitioner roles. These pathways reflect the diverse opportunities in U.S. healthcare and make advanced medical careers more accessible.

Best Scientists Citing Neal F. Kassell

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles