World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

Stephen Burgess 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 Stephen Burgess 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+

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

Stephen Burgess 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 Stephen Burgess 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+

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

Overview

Stephen Burgess is affiliated with the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Their research focuses primarily on Environmental Science, with contributions spanning various related subfields.

The main fields of study in their work include:

  • Environmental Science

Within Environmental Science, their subfields of study cover:

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Atmospheric Science

The main topics addressed in their research are:

  • Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Remote Sensing in Agriculture
  • Tree-ring Climate Responses
  • Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes

Stephen Burgess has contributed to several recent papers, including:

  • How Climate Shapes the Functioning of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, 2020, published in Current Forestry Reports
  • Maximum Heat Ratio: Bi-directional Method for Fast and Slow Sap Flow Measurements, 2021, published in Plant and Soil
  • Correction to: Maximum Heat Ratio: Bi-directional Method for Fast and Slow Sap Flow Measurements, 2023, published in Plant and Soil

Their frequent co-authors include:

  • Jose Gutiérrez López
  • Thomas G. Pypker
  • Julián Licata
  • Heidi Asbjornsen
  • Cleiton B. Eller

The primary venues where their work has been published are:

  • Plant and Soil
  • Current Forestry Reports

Best Publications

  • Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression

    Jack Bowden;George Davey Smith;Stephen Burgess

  • Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator.

    Jack Bowden;George Davey Smith;Philip C. Haycock;Stephen Burgess

  • The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome

    Gibran Hemani;Jie Zheng;Benjamin Elsworth;Kaitlin H Wade

  • Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data.

    Stephen Burgess;Adam Butterworth;Simon G. Thompson

  • Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method

    Stephen Burgess;Simon G. Thompson

  • Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies

    Stephen Burgess;Simon G Thompson

  • A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization

    Stephen Burgess;Dylan S Small;Simon Gregory Thompson

  • PhenoScanner V2: an expanded tool for searching human genotype-phenotype associations

    Mihir A Kamat;James A Blackshaw;Robin Young;Praveen Surendran

  • MendelianRandomization: an R package for performing Mendelian randomization analyses using summarized data.

    Olena O Yavorska;Stephen Burgess

  • Sensitivity Analyses for Robust Causal Inference from Mendelian Randomization Analyses with Multiple Genetic Variants

    Stephen Burgess;Jack Bowden;Tove Fall;Erik Ingelsson

  • Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations.

    Stephen Burgess;George Davey Smith;Neil M Davies;Frank Dudbridge

  • PhenoScanner: a database of human genotype-phenotype associations.

    James R. Staley;James A. Blackshaw;Mihir A. Kamat;Steve Ellis

  • Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization

    Stephen Burgess;Neil M. Davies;Simon G. Thompson

  • Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors

    Stephen Burgess;Robert A. Scott;Nicholas J. Timpson;George Davey Smith

  • A macroscope in the redwoods

    Gilman Tolle;Joseph Polastre;Robert Szewczyk;David Culler

  • Efficient Design for Mendelian Randomization Studies: Subsample and 2-Sample Instrumental Variable Estimators

    Brandon L. Pierce;Stephen Burgess

  • Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods

    Stephen Burgess;Frank Dudbridge;Simon Gregory Thompson

  • Re: “Multivariable Mendelian Randomization: The Use of Pleiotropic Genetic Variants to Estimate Causal Effects”

    Stephen Burgess;Frank Dudbridge;Simon G. Thompson

  • Risk thresholds for alcohol consumption: combined analysis of individual-participant data for 599 912 current drinkers in 83 prospective studies

    Angela M. Wood;Stephen Kaptoge;Adam S. Butterworth;Peter Willeit

  • An improved heat pulse method to measure low and reverse rates of sap flow in woody plants.

    Stephen S. O. Burgess;Mark A. Adams;Neil C. Turner;Craig R. Beverly

Frequent Co-Authors

Susanna C. Larsson
Susanna C. Larsson Karolinska Institute
John Danesh
John Danesh University of Cambridge
Adam S. Butterworth
Adam S. Butterworth University of Cambridge
Simon G. Thompson
Simon G. Thompson University of Cambridge
George Davey Smith
George Davey Smith University of Bristol
Emanuele Di Angelantonio
Emanuele Di Angelantonio University of Cambridge
Nicholas J. Wareham
Nicholas J. Wareham University of Cambridge
Claudia Langenberg
Claudia Langenberg Queen Mary University of London
Børge G. Nordestgaard
Børge G. Nordestgaard University of Copenhagen
Peter Willeit
Peter Willeit Innsbruck Medical 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

Exploring career options related to medicine in the USA doesn't always mean becoming a physician. Many students choose alternative allied health roles or accelerated nursing pathways, both of which are accessible through online education. For those looking to enter advanced nursing roles without a nursing background, direct entry np programs for non nurses online provide a fast-track to a master's level nursing profession.

Other options are also available for those seeking a quicker entry into healthcare. Online adn programs for non nurses allow aspiring professionals to gain essential qualifications as Registered Nurses (RNs) within a shorter timeframe. Admissions requirements may vary, and some schools offer flexible entry standards. For example, there are nursing schools that don't require teas or hesi, making the application process more accessible.

Additionally, those interested in administrative healthcare roles can pursue online medical billing and coding with financial aid programs. These options are ideal for students seeking flexible, financially supported pathways into essential healthcare support careers, without the clinical responsibilities of patient care.

Best Scientists Citing Stephen Burgess

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles