World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Thomas C. Chalmers

Thomas C. Chalmers

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
84
Citations
42912
World Ranking
14835
National Ranking
7498

Thomas C. Chalmers 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 Thomas C. Chalmers 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: 268 publications — 11th percentile

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

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

Thomas C. Chalmers 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 Thomas C. Chalmers 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: 84 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 1974 - Member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)
  • Member of the Association of American Physicians
  • Member of the Association of American Physicians

Overview

Thomas C. Chalmers was affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their academic career included collaboration with several frequent co-authors, which reflects engagement with diverse research perspectives and partnerships. These co-authors were Thomas Reid, Francis Jeffrey, James Beattie, Dugald Stewart, and William Hamilton.

Throughout their career, Thomas C. Chalmers was recognized by prestigious professional organizations. In 1974, they became a Member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Additionally, they held membership in the Association of American Physicians, though the year of induction is unspecified.

The available data does not list specific research topics, fields of study, or publication venues directly connected to Thomas C. Chalmers' work. Similarly, no recent papers or book publications were recorded in the dataset.

Chalmers' collaborations with co-authors such as Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart may indicate intersections with fields related to philosophy, medicine, or early scientific inquiry, given the historical and academic backgrounds of these individuals, but the primary focus of their research is not explicitly documented here.

Thomas C. Chalmers is deceased, and the profile reflects their contributions and recognition accordingly.

Best Publications

  • Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration.

    S Yusuf;S Yusuf;D Zucker;D Zucker;E Passamani;P Peduzzi

  • The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials.

    Jennie A. Freiman;Thomas C. Chalmers;Harry A. Smith;Roy R. Kuebler

  • A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction.

    Elliott M. Antman;Joseph Lau;Bruce Kupelnick;Frederick Mosteller

  • Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

    Henry S. Sacks;Jayne Berrier;Dinah Reitman;V.A. Ancona-Berk

  • The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome : Cumulative meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials

    Jane C. Ballantyne;Daniel B. Carr;Sarah deFerranti;Thomas Suarez

  • Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide

    Charles G. Zubrod;Marvin Schneiderman;Emil Frei;Clyde Brindley

  • Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction

    Joseph Lau;Elliott M. Antman;Jeanette Jimenez-Silva;Bruce Kupelnick

  • Effect of partial ileal bypass surgery on mortality and morbidity from coronary heart disease in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Report of the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias (POSCH)

    Henry Buchwald;Richard L. Varco;John P. Matts;John M. Long

  • Efficacy and safety of quinidine therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

    S E Coplen;E M Antman;J A Berlin;P Hewitt

  • Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials

    Henry. Sacks;Thomas C.. Chalmers;Harry. Smith

  • The Comparative Effects of Postoperative Analgesic Therapies on Pulmonary Outcome

    Jane C. Ballantyne;Daniel B. Carr;Sarah deFerranti;Thomas Suarez

  • The Effect of Dietary Protein Restriction on the Progression of Diabetic and Nondiabetic Renal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

    Michael T. Pedrini;Andrew S. Levey;Joseph Lau;Thomas C. Chalmers

  • Chlorination, chlorination by-products, and cancer: a meta-analysis.

    R D Morris;A M Audet;I F Angelillo;T C Chalmers

  • Meta-analysis of effects of intensive blood-glucose control on late complications of type I diabetes

    P.H. Wang;J. Lau;T.C. Chalmers

  • Neurolytic celiac plexus block for treatment of cancer pain : a meta-analysis

    E. Eisenberg;D. B. Carr;T. C. Chalmers

  • Renal failure in the patient with cirrhosis: The role of active vasoconstriction

    Murray Epstein;Dennis P. Berk;Norman K. Hollenberg;Douglass F. Adams

  • Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials. How do their results compare?

    JC Cappelleri;Jpa Ioannidis;CH Schmid;SD de Ferranti

  • A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials

    Jesse A. Berlin;Nan M. Laird;Henry S. Sacks;Thomas C. Chalmers

  • Association of Adrenocorticosteroid Therapy and Peptic-Ulcer Disease

    Julio Messer;Dinah Reitman;Henry S. Sacks;Harry Smith

  • American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

    Thomas C. Chalmers

Frequent Co-Authors

Joseph Lau
Joseph Lau Chinese University of Hong Kong
Frederick Mosteller
Frederick Mosteller Harvard University
Jesse A. Berlin
Jesse A. Berlin Johnson & Johnson (United States)
Christopher H. Schmid
Christopher H. Schmid Brown University
Paula A. Rochon
Paula A. Rochon University of Toronto
Daniel B. Carr
Daniel B. Carr Tufts University
David Eisenberg
David Eisenberg Harvard University
Hershel Jick
Hershel Jick Boston University
Jerry H. Gurwitz
Jerry H. Gurwitz University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
Paul R. Fortin
Paul R. Fortin Université Laval

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 career in Medicine doesn’t have to follow a traditional pathway. Online degrees now offer remarkable flexibility for aspiring and current healthcare professionals who want to advance their expertise. For example, registered nurses interested in the highest levels of clinical practice can benefit from the easiest dnp program online, letting them earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice with more accessible entry points.

Those looking to quickly enter the workforce as a nurse might consider a fast lpn program to become a Licensed Practical Nurse. For specialized fields, such as mental health, the shortest pmhnp program allows you to qualify as a Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner in a reduced time frame.

For those drawn to the administrative side of healthcare, managing costs is crucial. Discover the healthcare administration degree cost for various online programs to find affordable options. Whatever your interest, online healthcare degrees offer efficient and diverse avenues for professional growth.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas C. Chalmers