World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
79
Citations
21137
World Ranking
17642
National Ranking
8812

Peter C. Black 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 Peter C. Black 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: 736 publications — 83rd percentile

83% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Peter C. Black 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 Peter C. Black 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: 79 D-Index — 14th percentile

14% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Peter C. Black is affiliated with Harvard Medical School in the United States and has a research focus within the field of Medicine, particularly emphasizing Surgery, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Oncology, Molecular Biology, and Urology.

Their research encompasses several main topics, including:

  • Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
  • Urinary and Genital Oncology Studies
  • Urological Disorders and Treatments
  • Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Epigenetics and DNA Methylation

Peter C. Black has published extensively in numerous academic journals. The most frequent publication venues include:

  • The Journal of Urology (49 publications)
  • European Urology (30 publications)
  • Canadian Urological Association Journal (27 publications)
  • Société Internationale d'Urologie Journal (27 publications)
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (24 publications)

Some of their recent notable papers are:

  • "Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer in 2023: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors," 2023, European Urology
  • "Universal DNA methylation age across mammalian tissues," 2023, Nature Aging
  • "Global Trends of Bladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality, and Their Associations with Tobacco Use and Gross Domestic Product Per Capita," 2020, European Urology
  • "Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate Cancer," 2021, JAMA Oncology
  • "Impact of Molecular Subtyping and Immune Infiltration on Pathological Response and Outcome Following Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer," 2020, European Urology

The scientist has collaborated frequently with several coauthors, including:

  • Wassim Kassouf (77 joint publications)
  • Ashish M. Kamat (50 joint publications)
  • Girish S. Kulkarni (47 joint publications)
  • Yair Lotan (37 joint publications)
  • Ricardo Rendon (35 joint publications)

Best Publications

  • A Consensus Molecular Classification of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

    Aurélie Kamoun;Aurélien de Reyniès;Yves Allory;Yves Allory;Gottfrid Sjödahl

  • Impact of Molecular Subtypes in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer on Predicting Response and Survival after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

    Roland Seiler;Roland Seiler;Hussam Al Deen Ashab;Nicholas Erho;Bas W G van Rhijn

  • Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018

    Marcus George Kwesi Cumberbatch;Ibrahim Jubber;Peter C. Black;Francesco Esperto

  • Discovery and Validation of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier that Predicts Early Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy

    Nicholas Erho;Anamaria Crisan;Ismael A. Vergara;Anirban P. Mitra

  • Validation of a Genomic Classifier that Predicts Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy in an At Risk Patient Population

    R. Jeffrey Karnes;Eric J. Bergstralh;Elai Davicioni;Mercedeh Ghadessi

  • Patterns of Relapse in Patients With Clinical Stage I Testicular Cancer Managed With Active Surveillance

    Christian Kollmannsberger;Torgrim Tandstad;Philippe L. Bedard;Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark

  • Multicenter Assessment of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

    Homayoun Zargar;Patrick N. Espiritu;Adrian S. Fairey;Adrian S. Fairey;Laura S. Mertens

  • Prognostic and Prediction Tools in Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

    Luis A. Kluth;Peter C. Black;Bernard H. Bochner;James Catto

  • The impact of variant histology on the outcome of bladder cancer treated with curative intent

    Peter C. Black;Gordon A. Brown;Colin P.N. Dinney

  • Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

    Shuang G. Zhao;S. Laura Chang;Nicholas Erho;Menggang Yu

  • Differences in Survival Among Patients With Sarcomatoid Carcinoma, Carcinosarcoma and Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder

    Jonathan L. Wright;Peter C. Black;Gordon A. Brown;Michael P. Porter

  • Morphological differences between circulating tumor cells from prostate cancer patients and cultured prostate cancer cells.

    Sunyoung Park;Richard R. Ang;Simon P. Duffy;Jenny Bazov

  • EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort†

    J. Alfred Witjes;Marek Babjuk;Joaquim Bellmunt;H. Maxim Bruins

  • Circulating Tumor DNA Abundance and Potential Utility in De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer

    Gillian Vandekerkhove;Werner J. Struss;Matti Annala;Heini M.L. Kallio

  • Automatic grading of prostate cancer in digitized histopathology images: Learning from multiple experts.

    Guy Nir;Soheil Hor;Davood Karimi;Ladan Fazli

  • EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees

    J. Alfred Witjes;Marek Babjuk;Joaquim Bellmunt;H. Maxim Bruins

  • Global Trends of Bladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality, and Their Associations with Tobacco Use and Gross Domestic Product Per Capita.

    Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh;Junjie Huang;Wendy Yuet Kiu Ko;Veeleah Lok

  • Continuous flow deformability-based separation of circulating tumor cells using microfluidic ratchets

    Emily S. Park;Chao Jin;Quan Guo;Richard R. Ang

  • Impact of Molecular Subtyping and Immune Infiltration on Pathological Response and Outcome Following Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

    Andrea Necchi;Daniele Raggi;Andrea Gallina;Jeffrey S. Ross;Jeffrey S. Ross

  • Predicting Response to Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy: Are We There Yet? A Systematic Review.

    Ashish M. Kamat;Roger Li;Michael A. O’Donnell;Peter C. Black

Frequent Co-Authors

Mattias Höglund
Mattias Höglund Lund University
Núria Malats
Núria Malats Spanish National Cancer Research Centre
Katherine A. Hoadley
Katherine A. Hoadley University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Francisco X. Real
Francisco X. Real Pompeu Fabra University
Martin E. Gleave
Martin E. Gleave University of British Columbia
Arndt Hartmann
Arndt Hartmann University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Seth P. Lerner
Seth P. Lerner Baylor College of Medicine
Joaquim Bellmunt
Joaquim Bellmunt Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Hikmat Al-Ahmadie
Hikmat Al-Ahmadie Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Thomas Powles
Thomas Powles Queen Mary University of London

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

Medicine isn’t the only route to a rewarding healthcare career—there are numerous pathways and online degrees worth considering. For future nurses, direct admit nursing programs offer streamlined entry without the need for lengthy pre-nursing coursework or high test scores, making the journey faster for many students.

Some students are interested in nursing but may be concerned about admissions testing. Explore nursing schools that don't require teas to find programs that waive standard entrance exams, creating greater accessibility and less stress.

Not all healthcare roles involve patient care. Those seeking a vital administrative role can pursue an online healthcare administration degree, opening doors to management and leadership positions in healthcare settings.

Meanwhile, students interested in the business side of health can benefit from medical billing and coding careers. Many accredited programs provide options for medical billing and coding financial aid, making it easier to get started in this essential field.

Best Scientists Citing Peter C. Black

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles