World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
118
Citations
77528
World Ranking
3975
National Ranking
2173

Richard M. Goldberg 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 Richard M. Goldberg 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: 723 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.

Richard M. Goldberg 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 Richard M. Goldberg 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: 118 D-Index — 80th percentile

80% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Richard M. Goldberg is affiliated with West Virginia University in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with significant contributions in oncology and related subfields such as pathology and forensic medicine, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, cancer research, and surgery.

The scientist's work extensively covers several topics within oncology, including colorectal cancer treatments and studies, genetic factors in colorectal cancer, gastric cancer management and outcomes, cancer genomics and diagnostics, colorectal cancer screening and detection, pancreatic and hepatic oncology research, and colorectal and anal carcinomas.

Frequent coauthors in their research include:

  • Heinz-Josef Lenz
  • Francesca Battaglin
  • Joanne Xiu
  • Anthony F. Shields
  • Qian Shi

Richard M. Goldberg has published numerous papers in notable venues, with a focus on the treatment and molecular characteristics of colorectal cancer. Significant publication venues include the Journal of Clinical Oncology, UNC Libraries, Annals of Oncology, European Journal of Cancer, and the International Journal of Cancer.

Key recent publications by this scientist are:

  • "Microsatellite Instability in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer Receiving Fluoropyrimidine With or Without Oxaliplatin: An ACCENT Pooled Analysis of 12 Adjuvant Trials," 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Relationship between MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 gene-specific alterations and tumor mutational burden in 1057 microsatellite instability-high solid tumors," 2020, International Journal of Cancer
  • "A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer," 2023, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Effect of Celecoxib vs Placebo Added to Standard Adjuvant Therapy on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer," 2021, JAMA
  • "Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (GEP-NENs)," 2020, Clinical Cancer Research

Best Publications

  • PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency

    Dung T. Le;Jennifer N. Uram;Hao Wang;Bjarne R. Bartlett

  • Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade

    Dung T. Le;Dung T. Le;Jennifer N. Durham;Jennifer N. Durham;Kellie N. Smith;Hao Wang

  • Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

    Axel Grothey;Eric Van Cutsem;Alberto Sobrero;Salvatore Siena

  • A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

    Richard M. Goldberg;Daniel J. Sargent;Roscoe F. Morton;Charles S. Fuchs

  • Tumor Microsatellite-Instability Status as a Predictor of Benefit from Fluorouracil-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer

    Christine M. Ribic;Daniel J. Sargent;Malcolm J. Moore;Malcolm J. Moore;Stephen N. Thibodeau

  • Phase III Trial of Trimodality Therapy With Cisplatin, Fluorouracil, Radiotherapy, and Surgery Compared With Surgery Alone for Esophageal Cancer: CALGB 9781

    Joel Tepper;Mark J. Krasna;Donna Niedzwiecki;Donna Hollis

  • Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

    Axel Grothey;Daniel Sargent;Richard M. Goldberg;Hans Joachim Schmoll

  • Pooled analysis of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for stage II and III colon cancer: who benefits and by how much?

    Sharlene Gill;Charles L. Loprinzi;Daniel J. Sargent;Stephan D. Thomé

  • A pooled analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer in elderly patients.

    Daniel J. Sargent;Richard M. Goldberg;Stacy D. Jacobson;John S. Macdonald

  • Gemcitabine Plus Bevacizumab Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Phase III Trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 80303)

    Hedy Lee Kindler;Donna Niedzwiecki;Donna Hollis;Susan Sutherland

  • Immunohistochemistry Versus Microsatellite Instability Testing in Phenotyping Colorectal Tumors

    Noralane M. Lindor;Lawrence J. Burgart;Olga Leontovich;Richard M. Goldberg

  • Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Alan P. Venook;Donna Niedzwiecki;Heinz Josef Lenz;Federico Innocenti

  • Disease-Free Survival Versus Overall Survival As a Primary End Point for Adjuvant Colon Cancer Studies: Individual Patient Data From 20,898 Patients on 18 Randomized Trials

    Daniel J. Sargent;Harry S. Wieand;Daniel G. Haller;Richard Gray

  • Evidence for Cure by Adjuvant Therapy in Colon Cancer: Observations Based on Individual Patient Data From 20,898 Patients on 18 Randomized Trials

    Daniel Sargent;Alberto Sobrero;Axel Grothey;Michael J. O'Connell

  • Phase III Trial Assessing Bevacizumab in Stages II and III Carcinoma of the Colon: Results of NSABP Protocol C-08

    Carmen J. Allegra;Greg Yothers;Michael J. O'Connell;Saima Sharif

  • Lower Cancer Incidence in Amsterdam-I Criteria Families Without Mismatch Repair Deficiency: Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X

    Noralane M. Lindor;Kari Rabe;Gloria M. Petersen;Robert Haile

  • Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin for Patients With Unresectable Liver-Only Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase II Study

    Steven R. Alberts;William L. Horvath;William C. Sternfeld;Richard M. Goldberg

  • Platinum neurotoxicity pharmacogenetics

    Sarah R. McWhinney;Richard M. Goldberg;Howard L. McLeod

  • Treatment of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis With Systemic Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase III Trials N9741 and N9841

    Jan Franko;Qian Shi;Charles D. Goldman;Barbara A. Pockaj

  • Cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

    Richard M Goldberg;Alan P Venook;Richard L Schilsky

Frequent Co-Authors

Heinz-Josef Lenz
Heinz-Josef Lenz University of Southern California
Axel Grothey
Axel Grothey University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Donna Niedzwiecki
Donna Niedzwiecki Duke University
Alan P. Venook
Alan P. Venook University of California, San Francisco
Robert J. Mayer
Robert J. Mayer Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Leonard Saltz
Leonard Saltz Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer 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

For those interested in the medical field but seeking alternatives to the traditional MD path, a variety of related online degrees and career options are available. Many students pursue administrative or advanced practice roles that are highly valued in today’s healthcare landscape.

If you’re drawn to the leadership side of healthcare, finding which online healthcare administration programs have CAHME accreditation? is a smart starting point. CAHME-accredited MHA programs ensure a rigorous curriculum recognized across the industry.

For current registered nurses looking to upgrade credentials with more flexibility, there are RN to BSN with no clinicals programs, making it possible to earn your degree entirely online and at your own pace.

Nurses interested in advancing further can also explore doctoral options. If speed is your priority, discover the quickest DNP program offerings online, expediting your path to leadership and teaching positions. Alternatively, those on a budget may want to learn more about the cheapest online DNP programs to balance affordability with career advancement.

These alternative pathways offer flexibility, affordability, and accessibility—opening doors to a wide range of roles in medicine and healthcare.

Best Scientists Citing Richard M. Goldberg

Trending Scientists