World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
82
Citations
23530
World Ranking
16175
National Ranking
8138

Stephen H. Taplin 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 H. Taplin 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: 220 publications — 4th percentile

4% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Stephen H. Taplin 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 H. Taplin 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: 82 D-Index — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Stephen H. Taplin is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with a particular emphasis on oncology. Their work also spans interdisciplinary areas including information systems and management, artificial intelligence, epidemiology, and pulmonary and respiratory medicine.

Their recent research contributions include studies in cancer screening, data management, and collaborative health research. Some of the notable papers authored or co-authored by Taplin are:

  • "Measures of longitudinal adherence to fecal-based colorectal cancer screening: Literature review and recommended approaches," published in 2021 in the International Journal of Cancer
  • "Humanizing Big Data: Recognizing the Human Aspect of Big Data," published in 2020 in Frontiers in Oncology
  • "Advancing Collaborative Research with 2-1-1 to Reduce Health Disparities: Challenges, Opportunities, and Recommendations," published in 2020 by UNC Libraries
  • "Effect of Previous Benign Breast Biopsy on the Interpretive Performance of Subsequent Screening Mammography," published in 2020 by UNC Libraries
  • "Teams and Teamwork During a Cancer Diagnosis: Interdependency Within and Between Teams," published in 2020 by UNC Libraries

Taplin frequently publishes in venues including UNC Libraries, International Journal of Cancer, and Frontiers in Oncology.

Their collaborations often involve a core group of researchers, including Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Diana S.M. Buist, Diana L. Miglioretti, Berta M. Geller, and Patricia A. Carney.

Taplin's main fields of study and research interests are:

  • Medicine

Within this broader field, their subfields of study cover:

  • Oncology
  • Information Systems and Management
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Epidemiology
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

The main research topics addressed in their publications include:

  • Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • AI in cancer detection
  • Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
  • Diverticular Disease and Complications
  • Research Data Management Practices

Best Publications

  • Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

    Patricia A. Carney;Diana L. Miglioretti;Bonnie C. Yankaskas;Karla Kerlikowske

  • Breast Density as a Predictor of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers

    Margaret T. Mandelson;Nina Oestreicher;Peggy L. Porter;Donna White

  • Detection of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

    Virginia L. Ernster;Rachel Ballard-Barbash;William E. Barlow;William E. Barlow;Yingye Zheng

  • Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

    Joshua J. Fenton;Stephen H. Taplin;Patricia A. Carney;Linn Abraham

  • The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

    Greg Rubin;Annette Berendsen;S Michael Crawford;Rachel Dommett

  • Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services.

    Susan A. Sabatino;Briana Lawrence;Randy Elder;Shawna L. Mercer

  • Stage, Age, Comorbidity, and Direct Costs of Colon, Prostate, and Breast Cancer Care

    Stephen H. Taplin;William Barlow;Nicole Urban;Margaret T. Mandelson

  • Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.

    Wendy A. Leyden;M. Michele Manos;Ann M. Geiger;Sheila Weinmann

  • Antibiotic use in relation to the risk of breast cancer.

    Christine M. Velicer;Susan R. Heckbert;Johanna W. Lampe;John D. Potter

  • Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

    Rachel Ballard-Barbash;Stephen H. Taplin;Bonnie C. Yankaskas;Virginia L. Ernster

  • Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years

    Diana S. M. Buist;Peggy L. Porter;Constance Lehman;Stephen H. Taplin

  • Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

    Peggy L. Porter;Amira Y. El-Bastawissi;Margaret T. Mandelson;Ming Gang Lin

  • Changes in Breast Density Associated With Initiation, Discontinuation, and Continuing Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy

    Carolyn M. Rutter;Margaret T. Mandelson;Mary B. Laya;Deborah J. Seger

  • Effect of Estrogen Replacement Therapy on the Specificity and Sensitivity of Screening Mammography

    Mary B. Laya;Eric B. Larson;Stephen H. Taplin;Emily White

  • Introduction: Understanding and Influencing Multilevel Factors Across the Cancer Care Continuum

    Stephen H. Taplin;Rebecca Anhang Price;Heather M. Edwards;Mary K. Foster

  • Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer

    Karla Kerlikowske;Patricia A. Carney;Berta Geller;Margaret T. Mandelson

  • Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Community Practice in the United States: A Cohort Study

    Karla Kerlikowske;Rebecca A. Hubbard;Diana L. Miglioretti;Berta M. Geller

  • Screening mammography: A missed clinical opportunity? Results of the NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium and National Health Interview Survey Studies

    Paul F. Engstrom;Bruce Trock;Barbara Rimer;Andrew Balshem

  • Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

    William E. Barlow;Chen Chi;Patricia A. Carney;Stephen H. Taplin

  • Reported drop in mammography: Is this cause for concern?

    Nancy Breen;Kathleen A. Cronin;Helen I. Meissner;Stephen H. Taplin

Frequent Co-Authors

William E. Barlow
William E. Barlow Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Diana L. Miglioretti
Diana L. Miglioretti University of California, Davis
Diana S. M. Buist
Diana S. M. Buist Kaiser Permanente
Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Rachel Ballard-Barbash National Institutes of Health
Joann G. Elmore
Joann G. Elmore University of California, Los Angeles
Karla Kerlikowske
Karla Kerlikowske University of California, San Francisco
Gary Cutter
Gary Cutter University of Alabama at Birmingham
Robert D. Rosenberg
Robert D. Rosenberg Technical University of Munich
Nicole Urban
Nicole Urban Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Emily White
Emily White Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research 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

The pathways to a medical career in the USA are increasingly flexible, with many accredited programs online. Nursing professionals may advance their qualifications via rn to np programs online, offering a direct route toward advanced practice roles without needing to pause their careers.

For those interested in supporting wellness and disease prevention, a nutrition bachelor degree online can pave the way to roles in clinical nutrition, public health, or research. This option is ideal for students wanting to learn remotely while still accessing a science-focused curriculum.

Aspiring healthcare administrators should consider one of the top cahme accredited mha programs, which are highly respected for their rigorous standards and credibility with employers. These master’s degrees lead to leadership roles across hospitals and health systems.

Additionally, registered nurses seeking greater flexibility can enroll in an rn to bsn online with no clinicals program. This allows RNs to complete their bachelor’s degree remotely, with a schedule designed around working professionals.

Best Scientists Citing Stephen H. Taplin

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles