World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
63
Citations
18892
World Ranking
10036
National Ranking
4392

Thomas P. Lodise publication distribution in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Biology and Biochemistry in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Thomas P. Lodise sits on this spectrum.

47–56 publications: 8 scientists 57–66 publications: 35 scientists 67–76 publications: 106 scientists 77–86 publications: 231 scientists 87–96 publications: 414 scientists 97–106 publications: 546 scientists 107–116 publications: 704 scientists 117–126 publications: 849 scientists 127–136 publications: 980 scientists 137–146 publications: 942 scientists 147–156 publications: 969 scientists 157–166 publications: 950 scientists 167–176 publications: 951 scientists 177–186 publications: 915 scientists 187–196 publications: 787 scientists 197–206 publications: 841 scientists 207–216 publications: 735 scientists 217–226 publications: 709 scientists 227–236 publications: 651 scientists 237–246 publications: 605 scientists 247–256 publications: 510 scientists 257–266 publications: 524 scientists 267–276 publications: 434 scientists 277–286 publications: 418 scientists 287–296 publications: 350 scientists 297–306 publications: 363 scientists 307–316 publications: 315 scientists 317–326 publications: 296 scientists 327–336 publications: 261 scientists 337–346 publications: 240 scientists 347–356 publications: 219 scientists 357–366 publications: 197 scientists 367–376 publications: 154 scientists 377–386 publications: 161 scientists 387–396 publications: 155 scientists 397–406 publications: 145 scientists 407–416 publications: 124 scientists 417–426 publications: 112 scientists 427–436 publications: 132 scientists 437–446 publications: 116 scientists 447–456 publications: 99 scientists 457–466 publications: 81 scientists 467–476 publications: 91 scientists 477–486 publications: 80 scientists 487–496 publications: 80 scientists 497–506 publications: 60 scientists 507–516 publications: 36 scientists 517–526 publications: 46 scientists 527–536 publications: 54 scientists 537–546 publications: 44 scientists 547–556 publications: 43 scientists 557–566 publications: 43 scientists 567–576 publications: 42 scientists 577–586 publications: 25 scientists 587–596 publications: 34 scientists 597–606 publications: 23 scientists 607–616 publications: 33 scientists 617–626 publications: 31 scientists 627–636 publications: 27 scientists 637–646 publications: 25 scientists 647–656 publications: 28 scientists 657–666 publications: 34 scientists 667–676 publications: 18 scientists 677–686 publications: 16 scientists 687–696 publications: 10 scientists 697–706 publications: 12 scientists 707–716 publications: 21 scientists 717–726 publications: 12 scientists 727–736 publications: 12 scientists 737–746 publications: 10 scientists 747–756 publications: 7 scientists 757–766 publications: 13 scientists 767–776 publications: 15 scientists 777–786 publications: 13 scientists 787–796 publications: 9 scientists 797–806 publications: 9 scientists 807–816 publications: 7 scientists 817–826 publications: 4 scientists 827–836 publications: 9 scientists 837–846 publications: 7 scientists 847–856 publications: 3 scientists 857–866 publications: 5 scientists 867–876 publications: 5 scientists 877–886 publications: 11 scientists 887–896 publications: 3 scientists 897–906 publications: 4 scientists 907–916 publications: 7 scientists 917–926 publications: 5 scientists 927–936 publications: 6 scientists 937–946 publications: 6 scientists 947–956 publications: 3 scientists 957–966 publications: 7 scientists 967–976 publications: 2 scientists 977–986 publications: 2 scientists 987–996 publications: 1 scientists 997–1,006 publications: 5 scientists 1,007–1,016 publications: 2 scientists 1,017–1,026 publications: 2 scientists 1,027 publications: 1 scientists 1,028+ publications: 100 scientists
47 publications 1,028+

This scientist: 301 publications — 78th percentile

78% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,028 publications or more.

Thomas P. Lodise D-index placement in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Biology and Biochemistry scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Thomas P. Lodise sits on this spectrum.

40–41 D-Index: 80 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 183 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 317 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 504 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 718 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 900 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 1,026 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 1,150 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 1,236 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 1,253 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 1,163 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 1,131 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 1,032 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 897 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 814 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 715 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 709 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 596 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 512 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 473 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 412 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 373 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 358 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 285 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 273 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 227 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 208 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 193 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 153 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 157 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 148 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 120 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 113 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 100 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 86 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 67 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 72 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 73 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 64 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 53 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 60 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 54 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 43 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 38 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 49 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 26 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 18 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 23 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 32 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 32 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 27 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 19 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 22 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 12 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 16 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 14 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 10 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 13 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 10 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 7 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 9 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 13 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 4 scientists 166 D-Index: 4 scientists 167+ D-Index: 98 scientists
40 D-Index 167+

This scientist: 63 D-Index — 49th percentile

49% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 167 D-Index or more.

Overview

Thomas P. Lodise is affiliated with Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with specialized contributions in the subfields of infectious diseases, pharmacology, epidemiology, applied microbiology and biotechnology, and molecular medicine.

The scientist's work centers heavily on topics related to antibiotics pharmacokinetics and efficacy, antibiotic use and resistance, antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria more broadly, pneumonia and respiratory infections, urinary tract infections management, and research on Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens.

Thomas P. Lodise has published extensively in several notable venues, including:

  • Open Forum Infectious Diseases (34 publications)
  • Pharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy (15 publications)
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (13 publications)
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (9 publications)
  • Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (6 publications)

Frequent collaborators include J. Nicholas O'Donnell (16 coauthored papers), Vance G. Fowler (14), Thomas L Holland (13), Brian H. Nathanson (13), and Marc H. Scheetz (12).

Recent publications documenting key research contributions are:

  • Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists, 2020, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
  • Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial, 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases
  • Therapeutic Monitoring of Vancomycin for Serious Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Revised Consensus Guideline and Review by the American Society of Health-system Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists, 2020, Clinical Infectious Diseases
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, 2021, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
  • Gut microbiome health and dysbiosis: A clinical primer, 2022, Pharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy

Best Publications

  • Therapeutic Monitoring of Vancomycin for Serious Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Revised Consensus Guideline and Review by the American Society of Health-system Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

    Michael J Rybak;Michael J Rybak;Michael J Rybak;Jennifer Le;Thomas P Lodise;Donald P Levine;Donald P Levine

  • Relationship between Vancomycin MIC and Failure among Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Treated with Vancomycin

    T. P. Lodise;J. Graves;A. Evans;E. Graffunder

  • Outcomes Analysis of Delayed Antibiotic Treatment for Hospital-Acquired Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

    Thomas P. Lodise;Peggy S. McKinnon;Linda Swiderski;Michael J. Rybak

  • Larger Vancomycin Doses (at Least Four Grams per Day) Are Associated with an Increased Incidence of Nephrotoxicity

    Thomas P. Lodise;Ben Lomaestro;Jeffrey Graves;G. L. Drusano

  • Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial.

    Matteo Bassetti;Roger Echols;Yuko Matsunaga;Mari Ariyasu

  • Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients.

    Thomas P. Lodise;Nimish Patel;Ben M. Lomaestro;Keith A. Rodvold

  • Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection : Clinical Implications of an Extended-Infusion Dosing Strategy

    Thomas P. Lodise;Ben Lomaestro;George L. Drusano

  • Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Vancomycin-Induced Nephrotoxicity Associated with Dosing Schedules That Maintain Troughs between 15 and 20 Milligrams per Liter

    S. J. van Hal;S. J. van Hal;D. L. Paterson;T. P. Lodise

  • The Clinical Significance of Vancomycin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration in Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    S. J. van Hal;T. P. Lodise;D. L. Paterson

  • Are Vancomycin Trough Concentrations Adequate for Optimal Dosing

    Michael N. Neely;Gilmer Youn;Brenda Jones;Roger W. Jelliffe;Roger W. Jelliffe

  • Predictors of 30-Day Mortality among Patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections: Impact of Delayed Appropriate Antibiotic Selection

    Thomas P. Lodise;Nimish Patel;Andrea Kwa;Jeffrey Graves

  • Management of meningitis due to antibiotic-resistant Acinetobacter species

    Boek Lam Kim;Anton Peleg;Thomas P Lodise;Jeffrey Lipman

  • Application of Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamic Concepts into Clinical Practice: Focus on β-Lactam Antibiotics

    Thomas P. Lodise;Ben M. Lomaestro;George L. Drusano

  • Vancomycin: We Can't Get There From Here

    Nimish Patel;Manjunath P. Pai;Keith A. Rodvold;Ben Lomaestro

  • Clinical and economic impact of methicillin resistance in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

    Thomas P. Lodise;Peggy S. McKinnon;Peggy S. McKinnon

  • Vancomycin Plus Piperacillin-Tazobactam and Acute Kidney Injury in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Megan K. Luther;Tristan T. Timbrook;Aisling R. Caffrey;David Dosa

  • A systematic review of the methods used to assess the association between appropriate antibiotic therapy and mortality in bacteremic patients.

    Jessina C. McGregor;Shayna E. Rich;Anthony D. Harris;Eli N. Perencevich

  • Association Between Carbapenem Resistance and Mortality Among Adult, Hospitalized Patients With Serious Infections Due to Enterobacteriaceae: Results of a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

    Amber Martin;Kyle Fahrbach;Qi Zhao;Thomas Lodise

  • Analysis of the Phase 3 ESTABLISH Trials of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

    Andrew F. Shorr;Thomas P. Lodise;G. Ralph Corey;Carisa De Anda

  • Vancomycin plus Piperacillin/Tazobactam and Acute Kidney Injury in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Megan Luther;Megan Luther;Aisling Caffrey;Aisling Caffrey;David Dosa;David Dosa;Thomas P. Lodise

Frequent Co-Authors

George L. Drusano
George L. Drusano University of Florida
Michael J. Rybak
Michael J. Rybak Wayne State University
Keith A. Rodvold
Keith A. Rodvold University of Illinois at Chicago
G. Ralph Corey
G. Ralph Corey Duke University
David L. Paterson
David L. Paterson University of Queensland
Brian T. Tsuji
Brian T. Tsuji University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Federico Perez
Federico Perez Case Western Reserve University
Ronald N. Jones
Ronald N. Jones JMI Laboratories
John S. Bradley
John S. Bradley University of California, San Diego
Vance G. Fowler
Vance G. Fowler Duke 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

Pursuing Biology and Biochemistry in the USA opens the door to a wide range of flexible, online degree and certificate options. Students often explore related fields such as kinesiology, nursing, or nutrition to diversify their scientific background and boost career prospects.

For those interested in human movement and health, kinesiology online programs provide a strong foundation in the science of physical activity, offering pathways into physical therapy, sports science, and wellness coaching.

If your career goals include advanced nursing roles, consider the shortest pmhnp certificate program for psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioners. This option is ideal for professionals looking to quickly upskill. Similarly, post masters fnp programs allow those with existing degrees to become family nurse practitioners in a shorter time frame.

Nutrition is another popular pathway for biology and biochemistry students. The cheapest online nutrition degree options can help you launch a career in dietetics, food science, or public health—often with significant tuition savings.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas P. Lodise

Trending Scientists