World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Otto S. Hoekstra

Otto S. Hoekstra

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
95
Citations
43148
World Ranking
9918
National Ranking
388

Otto S. Hoekstra 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 Otto S. Hoekstra 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: 581 publications — 69th percentile

69% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Otto S. Hoekstra 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 Otto S. Hoekstra 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: 95 D-Index — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Otto S. Hoekstra is affiliated with Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands. Their research is primarily situated within the field of Medicine, with a focus on subfields such as Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Oncology, and Neurology.

The scientist's main research topics include:

  • Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
  • CNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers

Hoekstra has contributed to numerous publications in well-established venues. The most frequent publication venues for their work are:

  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • EJNMMI Research
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Blood

Several recent papers authored or co-authored by Hoekstra include:

  • "18F-FDG PET baseline radiomics features improve the prediction of treatment outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma," 2021, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • "Machine learning-based analysis of [18F]DCFPyL PET radiomics for risk stratification in primary prostate cancer," 2020, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
  • "Proposed New Dynamic Prognostic Index for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: International Metabolic Prognostic Index," 2022, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Automated Segmentation of Baseline Metabolic Total Tumor Burden in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Which Method Is Most Successful? A Study on Behalf of the PETRA Consortium," 2020, Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • "Pelvic lymph-node staging with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to extended pelvic lymph-node dissection in primary prostate cancer - the SALT trial -," 2020, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Hoekstra include:

  • Ronald Boellaard
  • Gerben J.C. Zwezerijnen
  • Josée M. Zijlstra
  • Henrica C. W. de Vet
  • Jakoba J. Eertink

Best Publications

  • FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0

    Ronald Boellaard;Roberto Delgado-Bolton;Wim J. G. Oyen;Francesco Giammarile

  • iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics

    Lesley Seymour;Jan Bogaerts;Andrea Perrone;Robert Ford

  • Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography : Review and 1999 EORTC recommendations

    H. Young;R. Baum;U. Cremerius;K. Herholz

  • Use of Positron Emission Tomography for Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma

    Malik E. Juweid;Sigrid Stroobants;Otto S. Hoekstra;Felix M. Mottaghy

  • Role of Imaging in the Staging and Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group

    Sally F. Barrington;N. George Mikhaeel;Lale Kostakoglu;Michel Meignan

  • FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0

    Ronald Boellaard;Mike J. O'Doherty;Wolfgang A. Weber;Felix M. Mottaghy

  • RECIST 1.1—Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee

    Lawrence H. Schwartz;Lawrence H. Schwartz;Saskia Litiere;Elisabeth G. E. de Vries;Robert Ford

  • Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial.

    Harm Van Tinteren;Otto S. Hoekstra;Egbert F. Smit;Jan H.A.M. Van Den Bergh

  • Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.

    James P.B. O'Connor;Eric O. Aboagye;Judith E. Adams;Hugo J.W.L. Aerts;Hugo J.W.L. Aerts

  • Effects of Noise, Image Resolution, and ROI Definition on the Accuracy of Standard Uptake Values: A Simulation Study

    Ronald Boellaard;Nanda C. Krak;Otto S. Hoekstra;Adriaan A. Lammertsma

  • Biologic correlates of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography

    Reinhard Bos;Jacobus J.M. Van der Hoeven;Elsken Van der Wall;Petra Van der Groep

  • Whole body PD-1 and PD-L1 positron emission tomography in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

    A. N. Niemeijer;D. Leung;M. C. Huisman;I. Bahce

  • The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials

    Ronald Boellaard;Wim J. G. Oyen;Corneline J. Hoekstra;Otto S. Hoekstra

  • Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability

    Ralph T. H. Leijenaar;Sara Carvalho;Emmanuel Rios Velazquez;Wouter J. C. van Elmpt

  • Clinical prediction model to characterize pulmonary nodules: validation and added value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

    Gerarda J. Herder;Harm van Tinteren;Richard P. Golding;Piet J. Kostense

  • Molecular imaging as a tool to investigate heterogeneity of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer and to predict patient outcome under trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1): the ZEPHIR trial

    G Gebhart;L. E Lamberts;Z Wimana;C Garcia

  • Impact of lymphoscintigraphy on sentinel node identification with technetium-99m-colloidal albumin in breast cancer.

    Rik Pijpers;Sybren Meijer;Otto S. Hoekstra;Gerard J. Collet

  • Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial

    Nanda C. Krak;R. Boellaard;Otto S. Hoekstra;Jos W. R. Twisk

  • Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters

    Marinke Westerterp;Jan Pruim;Wim Oyen;Otto Hoekstra

  • Esophageal cancer: CT, endoscopic US, and FDG PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy. Systematic review

    Marinke Westerterp;Henderik L van Westreenen;Johannes B Reitsma;Otto S Hoekstra

Frequent Co-Authors

Ronald Boellaard
Ronald Boellaard Amsterdam UMC
Adriaan A. Lammertsma
Adriaan A. Lammertsma VU University Medical Center
Egbert F. Smit
Egbert F. Smit VU University Medical Center
Remco de Bree
Remco de Bree Utrecht University
Wim J.G. Oyen
Wim J.G. Oyen Humanitas University
C. René Leemans
C. René Leemans University of Amsterdam
Sybren L. Meijer
Sybren L. Meijer University of Amsterdam
Henk M.W. Verheul
Henk M.W. Verheul Radboud University
Maarten Boers
Maarten Boers Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Henrica C.W. de Vet
Henrica C.W. de Vet University of Amsterdam

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

Studying Medicine in the USA opens doors to diverse online degree options and accelerated career pathways. Many students and working professionals are looking for flexible, accessible programs that allow them to advance without uprooting their lives. For nurses seeking to enhance their credentials, there are rn to bsn without clinicals programs available, providing a streamlined pathway to a bachelor’s degree without the need for in-person clinical rotations.

Those aiming for leadership or advanced practice roles may consider accelerated dnp programs and dnp programs online. These options often let you complete your Doctor of Nursing Practice degree faster and with greater scheduling flexibility.

If you’re new to nursing or looking to switch careers quickly, fast track lpn programs can provide a rapid entry point into the healthcare field. Each pathway has its prerequisites, requirements, and unique benefits, so be sure to research each route thoroughly to find the one that aligns with your goals.

Best Scientists Citing Otto S. Hoekstra

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles