World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
112
Citations
58939
World Ranking
5072
National Ranking
2744

Scott Kopetz 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 Kopetz 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: 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 855 publications — 90th percentile

90% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Scott Kopetz 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 Kopetz 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: 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 112 D-Index — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Scott Kopetz is affiliated with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine with extensive contributions in oncology and biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology.

The scientist has published extensively in subfields such as oncology, cancer research, pathology and forensic medicine, molecular biology, and pulmonary and respiratory medicine. Their work covers many topics including colorectal cancer treatments and studies, cancer genomics and diagnostics, genetic factors in colorectal cancer, lung cancer treatments and mutations, cancer immunotherapy and biomarkers, gastric cancer management and outcomes, and cancer treatment and pharmacology.

Notable recent papers include:

  • Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab as a New Standard of Care for Previously Treated BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Survival Results and Subgroup Analyses from the BEACON Study, 2021, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Randomized Trial of Irinotecan and Cetuximab With or Without Vemurafenib in BRAF-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (SWOG S1406), 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • ctDNA applications and integration in colorectal cancer: an NCI Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces whitepaper, 2020, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
  • Non-coding RNAs in GI cancers: from cancer hallmarks to clinical utility, 2020, Gut
  • Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: 4-year follow-up from CheckMate 142, 2022, Annals of Oncology

Scott Kopetz frequently collaborates with several researchers, including:

  • Michael J. Overman
  • Van K. Morris
  • Kanwal Raghav
  • John Paul Shen
  • Benny Johnson

Their work has appeared in multiple scientific venues, with prominent publications in:

  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Cancer Research
  • Annals of Oncology
  • Clinical Cancer Research
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Best Publications

  • The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer

    Justin Guinney;Rodrigo Dienstmann;Rodrigo Dienstmann;Xingwu Wang;Xingwu Wang;Aurélien De Reyniès

  • Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study

    Michael J. Overman;Ray McDermott;Joseph L. Leach;Sara Lonardi

  • Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer

    Michael J. Overman;Sara Lonardi;Ka Yeung Mark Wong;Heinz Josef Lenz

  • Improved Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Hepatic Resection and Improved Chemotherapy

    Scott Kopetz;George J. Chang;Michael J. Overman;Cathy Eng

  • Towards the introduction of the 'Immunoscore' in the classification of malignant tumours.

    Jérôme Galon;Jérôme Galon;Jérôme Galon;Bernhard Mlecnik;Bernhard Mlecnik;Bernhard Mlecnik;Gabriela Bindea;Gabriela Bindea;Gabriela Bindea;Helen K. Angell;Helen K. Angell;Helen K. Angell

  • Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E–Mutated Colorectal Cancer

    Scott Kopetz;Axel Grothey;Rona Yaeger;Eric Van Cutsem

  • Cancer classification using the Immunoscore: a worldwide task force

    Jérôme Galon;Franck Pagès;Francesco M Marincola;Francesco M Marincola;Helen K Angell;Helen K Angell

  • Consensus molecular subtypes and the evolution of precision medicine in colorectal cancer

    Rodrigo Dienstmann;Louis Vermeulen;Justin Guinney;Scott Kopetz

  • Impact of BRAF mutation and microsatellite instability on the pattern of metastatic spread and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer

    Ben Tran;Scott Kopetz;Jeanne Tie;Peter Gibbs

  • Phase II Pilot Study of Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer.

    Scott Kopetz;Jayesh Desai;Emily Chan;Joel Randolph Hecht

  • Pathologic Response to Preoperative Chemotherapy: A New Outcome End Point After Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

    Dan G. Blazer;Yoji Kishi;Dipen M. Maru;Scott Kopetz

  • CCAT2, a novel noncoding RNA mapping to 8q24, underlies metastatic progression and chromosomal instability in colon cancer

    Hui Ling;Riccardo Spizzo;Yaser Atlasi;Milena Nicoloso

  • Association of Computed Tomography Morphologic Criteria With Pathologic Response and Survival in Patients Treated With Bevacizumab for Colorectal Liver Metastases

    Yun Shin Chun;Jean Nicolas Vauthey;Piyaporn Boonsirikamchai;Dipen M. Maru

  • Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600-Mutant colorectal cancer

    Ryan B. Corcoran;Chloe E. Atreya;Gerald S. Falchook;Eunice L. Kwak

  • Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

    T. Yoshino;D. Arnold;H. Taniguchi;G. Pentheroudakis

  • KRAS-IRF2 Axis Drives Immune Suppression and Immune Therapy Resistance in Colorectal Cancer

    Wenting Liao;Michael J. Overman;Adam T. Boutin;Xiaoying Shang

  • Phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy and circulating angiogenic biomarkers associated with therapeutic resistance.

    Scott Kopetz;Paulo M. Hoff;Jeffrey S. Morris;Robert A. Wolff

  • Disparity of Race Reporting and Representation in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Drug Approvals from 2008 to 2018

    Jonathan M. Loree;Seerat Anand;Arvind Dasari;Joseph M. Unger

  • Feasibility of Large-Scale Genomic Testing to Facilitate Enrollment Onto Genomically Matched Clinical Trials

    Funda Meric-Bernstam;Lauren Brusco;Kenna Shaw;Chacha Horombe

  • High Survival Rate After Two-Stage Resection of Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastases: Response-Based Selection and Complete Resection Define Outcome

    Antoine Brouquet;Eddie K. Abdalla;Scott Kopetz;Christopher R. Garrett

Frequent Co-Authors

Michael J. Overman
Michael J. Overman The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Cathy Eng
Cathy Eng Vanderbilt University
Funda Meric-Bernstam
Funda Meric-Bernstam The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Robert A. Wolff
Robert A. Wolff The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Jean Nicolas Vauthey
Jean Nicolas Vauthey The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
David S. Hong
David S. Hong The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Filip Janku
Filip Janku The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Russell Broaddus
Russell Broaddus University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sarina Anne Piha-Paul
Sarina Anne Piha-Paul The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
George J. Chang
George J. Chang The University of Texas MD Anderson 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

Interested in expanding your healthcare career options beyond traditional medicine? There are several flexible online pathways to consider. For example, direct msn programs online allow individuals without a nursing background to earn a Master of Science in Nursing, often in less time than traditional routes.

If you're looking to become a nurse quickly, some schools offer an easiest bsn program to get into, making the transition into nursing more accessible for those with varying academic backgrounds.

For students who prefer working in the medical field without direct patient care, medical billing and coding is a rapidly growing area. You can find accredited remote programs offering financial aid for medical billing and coding, making these skills attainable and affordable.

In addition, some prospective nurses seek out nursing programs without teas or other standardized exam requirements, streamlining entry into nursing school.

Best Scientists Citing Scott Kopetz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles