World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
91
Citations
52977
World Ranking
11508
National Ranking
5900

Sunil Badve 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 Sunil Badve 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: 605 publications — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Sunil Badve 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 Sunil Badve 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: 91 D-Index — 43rd percentile

43% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Sunil Badve is affiliated with Emory University in the United States and has a research focus primarily in the fields of Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. Their work is heavily concentrated within the subfields of Oncology, Cancer Research, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, and Molecular Biology.

The main topics explored in their research include Breast Cancer Treatment Studies, Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers, Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics, Advanced Breast Cancer Therapies, and Breast Lesions and Carcinomas.

Sunil Badve has published extensively in several academic venues, with a notable presence in:

  • Cancer Research
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • npj Breast Cancer
  • Modern Pathology
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Frequent coauthors include Yesim Gökmen-Polar, Joseph A. Sparano, Kathy D. Miller, Daniel F. Hayes, and Roberto Salgado.

Recent publications authored or coauthored by Sunil Badve highlight their involvement in key topics related to breast cancer and biomarker research:

  • "Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group" (2020), published in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
  • "Association of Circulating Tumor DNA and Circulating Tumor Cells After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Disease Recurrence in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer" (2020), published in JAMA Oncology
  • "The tale of TILs in breast cancer: A report from The International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group" (2021), published in npj Breast Cancer
  • "The path to a better biomarker: application of a risk management framework for the implementation of PD-L1 and TILs as immuno-oncology biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials and daily practice" (2020), published in The Journal of Pathology
  • "Pitfalls in assessing stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in breast cancer" (2020), published in npj Breast Cancer

Best Publications

  • American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer

    M. Elizabeth H. Hammond;Daniel F Hayes;Mitch Dowsett;D Craig Allred

  • The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014

    R. Salgado;C. Denkert;S. Demaria;N. Sirtaine

  • Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

    Joseph A. Sparano;Robert J. Gray;Della F. Makower;Kathleen I. Pritchard

  • Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

    J. A. Sparano;R. J. Gray;D. F. Makower;K. I. Pritchard

  • CD44 + /CD24 - breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis

    Carol Sheridan;Hiromitsu Kishimoto;Robyn K Fuchs;Sanjana Mehrotra

  • Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade

    Emad A. Rakha;Jorge S. Reis-Filho;Frederick Baehner;David J. Dabbs

  • Pathologic Diagnosis of Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Report of the International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia

    Masamichi Kojiro;Ian R. Wanless;Venancio Alves;Sunil Badve

  • Association of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2 Genetic Polymorphisms With Outcome in a Trial of Paclitaxel Compared With Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced Breast Cancer: ECOG 2100

    Bryan P. Schneider;Molin Wang;Milan Radovich;George W. Sledge

  • Assessing Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Solid Tumors: A Practical Review for Pathologists and Proposal for a Standardized Method from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group Part 2 TILs in Melanoma, Gastrointestinal Tract Carcinomas, Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma and Mesothelioma, Endometrial and Ovarian Carcinomas, Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck, Genitourinary Carcinomas, and Primary Brain Tumors

    Shona Hendry;Roberto Salgado;Thomas Gevaert;Prudence A. Russell;Prudence A. Russell

  • Basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for pathologists and oncologists

    Sunil Badve;David J. Dabbs;Stuart J. Schnitt;Frederick L. Baehner

  • Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Prognosis: A Pooled Individual Patient Analysis of Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancers

    Sherene Loi;Damien Drubay;Sylvia Adams;Giancarlo Pruneri

  • Assessing Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Solid Tumors: A Practical Review for Pathologists and Proposal for a Standardized Method from the International Immunooncology Biomarkers Working Group: Part 1: Assessing the Host Immune Response, TILs in Invasive Breast Carcinoma and Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, Metastatic Tumor Deposits and Areas for Further Research

    Shona Hendry;Roberto Salgado;Thomas Gevaert;Prudence A. Russell;Prudence A. Russell

  • NF-κB represses E-cadherin expression and enhances epithelial to mesenchymal transition of mammary epithelial cells: potential involvement of ZEB-1 and ZEB-2

    H L Chua;P Bhat-Nakshatri;S E Clare;A Morimiya

  • A cellular trojan horse for delivery of therapeutic nanoparticles into tumors

    Mi-Ran Choi;Katie J Stanton-Maxey;Jennifer K Stanley;Carly S Levin

  • A Multigene Expression Assay to Predict Local Recurrence Risk for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

    Lawrence J. Solin;Robert Gray;Robert Gray;Frederick L. Baehner;Steven M. Butler

  • Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer.

    Joseph A. Sparano;Robert J. Gray;Peter M. Ravdin;Della F. Makower;Della F. Makower

  • Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

    Suetonia C Palmer;Britta Tendal;Reem A Mustafa;Reem A Mustafa;Per Olav Vandvik

  • Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events Associated With Glucose-Lowering Drugs in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis.

    Suetonia C. Palmer;Dimitris Mavridis;Dimitris Mavridis;Antonio Nicolucci;David W. Johnson;David W. Johnson

  • Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review

    Benjamin Y. Tan;Geza Acs;Sophia K. Apple;Sunil Badve

  • Update on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer, including recommendations to assess TILs in residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy and in carcinoma in situ: A report of the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group on Breast Cancer

    Maria Vittoria Dieci;Nina Radosevic-Robin;Susan Fineberg;Gert Van den Eynden

Frequent Co-Authors

Harikrishna Nakshatri
Harikrishna Nakshatri Indiana University
George W. Sledge
George W. Sledge Stanford University
Patrick J. Loehrer
Patrick J. Loehrer Indiana University
Joseph A. Sparano
Joseph A. Sparano Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Kathy D. Miller
Kathy D. Miller Indiana University
Nancy E. Davidson
Nancy E. Davidson University of Washington
William C. Wood
William C. Wood Emory University
Torsten O. Nielsen
Torsten O. Nielsen University of British Columbia
Roberto Salgado
Roberto Salgado Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
Giuseppe Viale
Giuseppe Viale University of Milan

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

If you’re interested in the medical field but seeking flexible or alternative routes, there are several related online degrees and career pathways to consider. These programs can open doors to well-paying healthcare professions beyond the traditional path of becoming a physician.

Health data is an essential part of modern medicine. Pursuing a healthcare informatics degree programs can prepare you for careers managing digital health records or analyzing healthcare information systems.

Administrative roles are also in demand. You can explore medical billing and coding online courses cost to find affordable programs that teach you to manage medical claims, insurance processing, and coding systems for hospitals and clinics.

For those with a passion for patient care, becoming a nurse practitioner is an excellent option. Check out reputable nurse practitioner programs that offer flexible online formats to advance your nursing career and scope of practice.

Finally, if you want to start your nursing journey or pursue further credentials, explore how much is online nursing school to learn about costs and program options.

Best Scientists Citing Sunil Badve

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles