World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
71
Citations
16236
World Ranking
20017
National Ranking
9970

Stefan G. Tullius 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 Stefan G. Tullius 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: 468 publications — 52nd percentile

52% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Stefan G. Tullius 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 Stefan G. Tullius 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: 71 D-Index — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Both alloantigen-dependent and -independent factors influence chronic allograft rejection.

    Stefan G. Tullius;Nicholas L. Tilney

  • Identification of a microRNA signature of renal ischemia reperfusion injury

    Jonathan G. Godwin;Xupeng Ge;Kristin Stephan;Anke Jurisch

  • Recommended Treatment for Antibody-mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation: The 2019 Expert Consensus From the Transplantion Society Working Group.

    Carrie A. Schinstock;Roslyn B. Mannon;Klemens Budde;Anita S. Chong

  • Brain death activates donor organs and is associated with a worse I/R injury after liver transplantation.

    Weiss S;Kotsch K;Francuski M;Reutzel-Selke A

  • Cytokines, adhesion molecules, and the pathogenesis of chronic rejection of rat renal allografts.

    Wayne Hancock;W. Whitley;Stefan Tullius;Uwe Heemann

  • Three Patients with Full Facial Transplantation

    Bohdan Pomahac;Julian Joseph Pribaz;Elof Eriksson;Ericka Bueno

  • De novo malignancies after liver transplantation using tacrolimus‐based protocols or cyclosporine‐based quadruple immunosuppression with an interleukin‐2 receptor antibody or antithymocyte globulin

    Sven Jonas;Nada Rayes;Ulf Neumann;Ruth Neuhaus

  • Methylprednisolone therapy in deceased donors reduces inflammation in the donor liver and improves outcome after liver transplantation: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

    Katja Kotsch;Frank Ulrich;Anja Reutzel-Selke;Andreas Pascher

  • Inhibition of ischemia/reperfusion injury and chronic graft deterioration by a single-donor treatment with cobalt-protoporphyrin for the induction of heme oxygenase-1.

    Stefan G. Tullius;Melina Nieminen-Kelhä;Roland Buelow;Anja Reutzel-Selke

  • The combination of donor and recipient age is critical in determining host immunoresponsiveness and renal transplant outcome.

    Stefan G Tullius;Huong Tran;Indira Guleria;Sayeed K Malek

  • Long-term kidney isografts develop functional and morphologic changes that mimic those of chronic allograft rejection.

    Stefan G. Tullius;Uwe Heemann;Wayne W. Hancock;Haruhito Azuma

  • Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay for donor-reactive interferon-gamma-producing cells identifies T-cell presensitization and correlates with graft function at 6 and 12 months in renal-transplant recipients.

    Peter Nickel;Franziska Presber;Gantuja Bold;Didier Biti

  • Report from the American Society of Transplantation on frailty in solid organ transplantation

    Jon Kobashigawa;Darshana Dadhania;Sangeeta Maruti Bhorade;Deborah Adey

  • Reversibility of chronic renal allograft rejection. Critical effect of time after transplantation suggests both host immune dependent and independent phases of progressive injury.

    Stefan G. Tullius;Wayne W. Hancock;Uwe Heemann;Haruhito Azuma

  • Influence of Donor Brain Death on Chronic Rejection of Renal Transplants in Rats

    Johann Pratschke;Markus J. Wilhelm;Igor Laskowski;Mamoru Kusaka

  • Age and immune response in organ transplantation.

    Paulo N. A. Martins;Johann Pratschke;Andreas Pascher;Lutz Fritsche

  • Nephron supply is a major determinant of long-term renal allograft outcome in rats.

    H S Mackenzie;S G Tullius;U W Heemann;H Azuma

  • Restoration of facial form and function after severe disfigurement from burn injury by a composite facial allograft.

    B. Pomahac;J. Pribaz;E. Eriksson;D. Annino

  • Effects of RS61443 on functional and morphological changes in chronically rejecting rat kidney allografts.

    Haruhito Azuma;Jochen Binder;Uwe Heemann;Christof Schmid

  • Old‐for‐Old Kidney Allocation Allows Successful Expansion of the Donor and Recipient Pool

    Lutz Fritsche;Jan Hörstrup;Klemens Budde;Petra Reinke

Frequent Co-Authors

Peter Neuhaus
Peter Neuhaus Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Hans-Dieter Volk
Hans-Dieter Volk Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Wolf O. Bechstein
Wolf O. Bechstein Goethe University Frankfurt
Nicholas L. Tilney
Nicholas L. Tilney Brigham and Women's Hospital
Anil Chandraker
Anil Chandraker Brigham and Women's Hospital
Petra Reinke
Petra Reinke Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien
Wayne W. Hancock
Wayne W. Hancock University of Pennsylvania
Francisco M. Marty
Francisco M. Marty Brigham and Women's Hospital
George F. Murphy
George F. Murphy Brigham and Women's Hospital
Guillermo García-Cardeña
Guillermo García-Cardeña Brigham and Women's Hospital

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

Exploring related fields and alternative career pathways can open doors in the ever-evolving healthcare sector. Many students interested in medicine also consider specialized roles such as medical coding, nursing, or healthcare administration. For those seeking flexibility, several accredited medical billing and coding schools online with financial aid offer a fast entry into healthcare support careers.

Nursing is another rewarding option, and there are nursing school that doesn't require teas, removing barriers for applicants who may not excel at standardized tests. This makes nursing education more accessible to a diverse range of students.

Leadership roles are also in demand. Earning a health care administration degree online enables graduates to manage clinics, hospitals, or public health organizations from anywhere.

Nurses seeking career advancement may opt for continuous education, such as asn to np bridge programs. These programs allow registered nurses to move efficiently to advanced practice roles. By considering these diverse online degrees, students can find the pathway that best matches their goals in the dynamic US healthcare landscape.

Best Scientists Citing Stefan G. Tullius

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles