World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
93
Citations
30072
World Ranking
10935
National Ranking
5625

Scott Davis 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 Scott Davis 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: 272 publications — 11th percentile

11% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Scott Davis 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 Scott Davis 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: 93 D-Index — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Scott Davis is affiliated with the University of Washington in the United States. Their research predominantly spans the fields of Medicine and Health Professions, with a focus on subfields including General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Clinical Psychology, Philosophy, and Physiology.

Their work addresses multiple topics, prominently:

  • Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
  • Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
  • Health, Medicine and Society
  • Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Child and Adolescent Health

Recent publications by Scott Davis include:

  • Adolescent Preferences Regarding a Web Site to Empower Adolescents to Talk With Their Healthcare Providers, 2020, Journal of Adolescent Health

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Davis are:

  • Delesha M. Carpenter
  • Betsy Sleath
  • Nacire Garcia
  • Kathleen C. Thomas
  • Izabela E. Annis

The scholar has published in various venues, with multiple works appearing in:

  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • UNC Libraries
  • Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
  • Innovation in Aging
  • Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

Although the recent papers listed include contributions by Davis, other works within the same sphere from co-authors address topics such as community pharmacists' practices regarding buprenorphine dispensing, co-design with Indigenous communities, asthma management self-efficacy, and patient engagement during medical encounters. These reflect the broader thematic context wherein Davis's work is situated.

Best Publications

  • The Immunological Genome Project: networks of gene expression in immune cells

    Tracy S P Heng;Michio W Painter;Kutlu Elpek;Veronika Lukacs-Kornek

  • Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer

    Scott Davis;Dana K. Mirick;Richard G. Stevens

  • EPIDEMIOLOGIC EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT DATA IN THE PRESENCE OF DETECTION LIMITS

    J H. Lubin;J S. Colt;D Camann;S Davis

  • Incidence of cancer in children in the United States. Sex-, race-, and 1-year age-specific rates by histologic type

    James G. Gurney;Richard K. Severson;Scott Davis;Scott Davis;Leslie L. Robison

  • Implementation of the Women's Health Initiative study design.

    Garnet L. Anderson;Joann Manson;Robert Wallace;Bernedine Lund

  • Autoimmune disorders and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes: a pooled analysis within the InterLymph Consortium.

    Karin Ekström Smedby;Claire M. Vajdic;Michael Falster;Eric A. Engels

  • Obesity, alcohol, and tobacco as risk factors for cancers of the esophagus and gastric cardia: adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma.

    Thomas L. Vaughan;Scott Davis;Alan Kristal;David B. Thomas

  • Polarization of the effects of autoimmune and neurodegenerative risk alleles in leukocytes.

    Towfique Raj;Katie Rothamel;Sara Mostafavi;Chun Ye

  • Considerations of circadian impact for defining 'shift work' in cancer studies: IARC working group report

    Richard G. Stevens;Johnni Hansen;Giovanni Costa;Erhard Haus

  • Class IIa HDAC inhibition reduces breast tumours and metastases through anti-tumour macrophages

    Jennifer L. Guerriero;Alaba Sotayo;Holly E. Ponichtera;Jessica A. Castrillon

  • Genetic variation in TNF and IL10 and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the InterLymph Consortium

    Nathaniel Rothman;Christine F Skibola;Sophia S Wang;Gareth Morgan

  • Trends in cancer incidence among children in the U.S.

    James G. Gurney;Scott Davis;Scott Davis;Richard K. Severson;Jei-Yin Fang

  • Circadian disruption, shift work and the risk of cancer: a summary of the evidence and studies in Seattle.

    Scott Davis;Dana K. Mirick

  • Etiologic Heterogeneity Among Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes: The InterLymph Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes Project

    Lindsay M. Morton;Susan L. Slager;James R. Cerhan;Sophia S. Wang

  • Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on

    Elisabeth Cardis;Geoffrey Howe;Elaine Ron;Vladimir Bebeshko

  • The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer.

    Richard G. Stevens;Scott Davis

  • Electric power, pineal function, and the risk of breast cancer.

    Richard G. Stevens;Scott Davis;David B. Thomas;Larry E. Anderson

  • Incidence of cancer of the esophagus in the US by histologic type

    Paul C. Yang;Scott Davis

  • Quantitative Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Normal Children between the Ages of 2 and 7 Years: Population-based Estimates Using Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium as Soil Tracer Elements

    Scott Davis;B A Patti Waller;Ray Buschbom;John Ballou

  • Polarization of the Effects of Autoimmune and Neurodegenerative Risk Alleles in Leukocytes

    T. Raj;K. Rothamel;S. Mostafavi;C. Ye

Frequent Co-Authors

James R. Cerhan
James R. Cerhan Mayo Clinic
Patricia Hartge
Patricia Hartge National Institutes of Health
Wendy Cozen
Wendy Cozen University of Southern California
Richard K. Severson
Richard K. Severson Wayne State University
A. C. Weber
A. C. Weber University of Oxford
Nathaniel Rothman
Nathaniel Rothman National Institutes of Health
Sophia S. Wang
Sophia S. Wang City Of Hope National Medical Center
Stephen J. Chanock
Stephen J. Chanock National Institutes of Health
C. W. Walter
C. W. Walter Duke University
Kate Scholberg
Kate Scholberg Duke University

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 the world of healthcare but are not ready to commit to a full medical degree, there are several alternative online pathways worth considering. Many students look for the easiest RN program as a practical route into nursing, where some schools have more accessible admission requirements.

For those concerned about entrance exams, you may ask, do you have to take the teas test to get into nursing school? Fortunately, some accredited programs do not require the TEAS or HESI, making the process less daunting.

If you’re interested in administrative roles, explore healthcare administration degrees that offer accelerated online options. These can prepare you for management positions within healthcare settings.

Additionally, careers in medical records are in high demand, and you can study while working, thanks to financial aid for medical billing and coding. This helps reduce the cost burden and opens new job opportunities in a growing healthcare sector.

Best Scientists Citing Scott Davis

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles