World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
33
Citations
20538
World Ranking
12336
National Ranking
4992

Steve Pieper publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Steve Pieper sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 107 publications — 11th percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Steve Pieper D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Steve Pieper sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 33 D-Index — 13th percentile

13% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Steve Pieper is affiliated with Brigham and Women's Hospital in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with a substantial concentration in radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging. The work extends into several subfields including computer vision and pattern recognition, cognitive neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and artificial intelligence.

The scientist's publications revolve around key topics such as radiomics and machine learning in medical imaging, advanced neuroimaging techniques and applications, medical imaging and analysis, functional brain connectivity studies, medical image segmentation techniques, AI in cancer detection, and medical imaging techniques and applications.

Frequent coauthors in their research efforts include Ron Kikinis, Yogesh Rathi, Lauren J. O'Donnell, Fan Zhang, and Tina Kapur, reflecting collaboration across multiple research endeavors.

They have contributed to several research papers, including:

  • SlicerMorph: An open and extensible platform to retrieve, visualize and analyse 3D morphology (2021) in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
  • SlicerDMRI: Diffusion MRI and Tractography Research Software for Brain Cancer Surgery Planning and Visualization (2020) in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
  • Open Health Imaging Foundation Viewer: An Extensible Open-Source Framework for Building Web-Based Imaging Applications to Support Cancer Research (2020) in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
  • NCI Imaging Data Commons (2021) in Cancer Research
  • Automatic multi-anatomical skull structure segmentation of cone-beam computed tomography scans using 3D UNETR (2022) in PLoS ONE

They have published frequently in venues such as arXiv (Cornell University), bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, the Proceedings on CD-ROM for the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Scientific Meeting and Exhibition, and Scientific Data.

Best Publications

  • 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network.

    Andriy Fedorov;Reinhard Beichel;Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer;Julien Finet

  • Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype

    Joost J.M. van Griethuysen;Joost J.M. van Griethuysen;Joost J.M. van Griethuysen;Andriy Fedorov;Chintan Parmar;Ahmed Hosny

  • 3D Slicer: A Platform for Subject-Specific Image Analysis, Visualization, and Clinical Support

    Ron Kikinis;Steve D. Pieper;Kirby G. Vosburgh

  • 3D Slicer

    S. Pieper;M. Halle;R. Kikinis

  • The NA-MIC Kit: ITK, VTK, pipelines, grids and 3D slicer as an open platform for the medical image computing community

    S. Pieper;B. Lorensen;W. Schroeder;R. Kikinis

  • OpenIGTLink: an open network protocol for image-guided therapy environment

    Junichi Tokuda;Gregory S. Fischer;Xenophon Papademetris;Ziv Yaniv

  • Visualization of image data from cells to organisms

    Thomas Walter;David W Shattuck;Richard Baldock;Mark E Bastin

  • GBM Volumetry using the 3D Slicer Medical Image Computing Platform

    Jan Egger;Tina Kapur;Andriy Fedorov;Steve Pieper

  • Test–retest and between-site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study

    Lee Friedman;Hal Stern;Gregory G. Brown;Daniel H. Mathalon

  • Repeatability of Multiparametric Prostate MRI Radiomics Features.

    Michael Schwier;Michael Schwier;Joost van Griethuysen;Mark G. Vangel;Steve Pieper

  • Applications of Ultrasound in the Resection of Brain Tumors

    Rahul Sastry;Wenya Linda Bi;Steve Pieper;Sarah Frisken

  • A National Human Neuroimaging Collaboratory Enabled by the Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN)

    D.B. Keator;J.S. Grethe;D. Marcus;B. Ozyurt

  • Robot-assisted needle placement in open MRI: System architecture, integration and validation

    S. P. DiMaio;S. Pieper;K. Chinzei;N. Hata

  • Interactive Diffusion Tensor Tractography Visualization for Neurosurgical Planning

    Alexandra Jacqueline Golby;Gordon Kindlmann;Isaiah Hakim Norton;Alexander Yarmarkovich

  • SlicerDMRI: Open Source Diffusion MRI Software for Brain Cancer Research.

    Isaiah Norton;Walid Ibn Essayed;Fan Zhang;Sonia Pujol

  • Implementing the DICOM Standard for Digital Pathology.

    Markus D Herrmann;David A Clunie;Andriy Fedorov;Sean W Doyle

  • Augmented Reality Simulator for Training in Two-Dimensional Echocardiography

    Unknown

  • 3D Slicer as a tool for interactive brain tumor segmentation

    Ron Kikinis;Steve Pieper

  • Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multi-institutional study performed by Biomedical Informatics Research Network.

    Kelly H. Zou;Douglas N. Greve;Meng Wang;Steven D. Pieper

  • DICOM for quantitative imaging biomarker development: a standards based approach to sharing clinical data and structured PET/CT analysis results in head and neck cancer research.

    Andriy Fedorov;David Clunie;Ethan Ulrich;Christian Bauer

  • Increasing the impact of medical image computing using community-based open-access hackathons: The NA-MIC and 3D Slicer experience.

    Tina Kapur;Steve Pieper;Andriy Fedorov;J. C. Fillion-Robin

  • Open Health Imaging Foundation Viewer: An Extensible Open-Source Framework for Building Web-Based Imaging Applications to Support Cancer Research.

    Erik Ziegler;Trinity Urban;Danny Brown;James Petts

  • SlicerDMRI: Diffusion MRI and Tractography Research Software for Brain Cancer Surgery Planning and Visualization

    Fan Zhang;Thomas Noh;Parikshit Juvekar;Sarah F. Frisken

  • Summarizing and visualizing uncertainty in non-rigid registration

    Petter Risholm;Steve Pieper;Eigil Samset;William M. Wells

  • NCI Imaging Data Commons.

    Andrey Fedorov;William J.R. Longabaugh;David Pot;David A. Clunie

  • A computer modeling tool for comparing novel ICD electrode orientations in children and adults.

    Matthew Jolley;Jeroen Stinstra;Steve Pieper;Rob MacLeod

  • A web-based system for neural network based classification in temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis

    Priscille de Dumast;Clément Mirabel;Lucia Cevidanes;Antonio Ruellas

  • Robot-assisted needle placement in open-MRI: system architecture, integration and validation.

    DiMaio Sp;Pieper S;Chinzei K;Hata N

  • Erratum: Visualization of image data from cells to organisms

    Thomas Walter;David W. Shattuck;Richard Baldock;Mark E. Bastin

Frequent Co-Authors

Ron Kikinis
Ron Kikinis Brigham and Women's Hospital
Alexandra J. Golby
Alexandra J. Golby Brigham and Women's Hospital
Tina Kapur
Tina Kapur Brigham and Women's Hospital
Hugo J.W.L. Aerts
Hugo J.W.L. Aerts Brigham and Women's Hospital
Clare M. Tempany
Clare M. Tempany Brigham and Women's Hospital
Gabor Fichtinger
Gabor Fichtinger Queen's University
Yogesh Rathi
Yogesh Rathi Brigham and Women's Hospital
Randy L. Gollub
Randy L. Gollub Harvard Medical School

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 a Computer Science degree opens the door to a wide array of related online educational options and career trajectories across the USA. Students interested in data analytics or artificial intelligence might consider pursuing the cheapest data science masters in usa, which provides advanced skills without the high price tag commonly associated with traditional universities.

For those drawn to the hardware and systems side of technology, looking into the best online electrical engineering programs USA can offer flexible and highly respected pathways aligned with the tech industry’s needs.

Individuals seeking quicker entry into the workforce may be interested in 3-month certificate programs that pay well. These short courses are an efficient way to gain in-demand, higher-paying skills.

Additionally, students with time and budget constraints can benefit from choosing the quickest cheapest masters degree options, enabling career growth without significant time away from employment or high tuition costs.

Best Scientists Citing Steve Pieper

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles