World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
90
Citations
45334
World Ranking
11977
National Ranking
6139

William F. Fearon 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 William F. Fearon 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: 610 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: 530 publications — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

William F. Fearon 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 William F. Fearon 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: 399 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: 90 D-Index — 41st percentile

41% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

William F. Fearon is affiliated with Stanford University in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on various aspects of medicine, with a significant emphasis on surgery, cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, and biomedical engineering.

The main topics of Fearon's work include coronary interventions and diagnostics, cardiac imaging and diagnostics, acute myocardial infarction research, cardiac valve diseases and treatments, renal and vascular pathologies, cardiac, anesthesia and surgical outcomes, and renal transplantation outcomes and treatments.

Fearon has published extensively in several prominent journals. The frequent publication venues associated with their work are:

  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
  • JAMA Internal Medicine
  • The American Journal of Cardiology
  • Annual Review of Medicine

Recent papers by William F. Fearon include:

  • Association of Pretransplant Coronary Heart Disease Testing With Early Kidney Transplant Outcomes, 2023, JAMA Internal Medicine
  • Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: Newer Data and Future Directions, 2024, The American Journal of Cardiology
  • Medical Therapy Alone, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease, 2024, Annual Review of Medicine
  • Current Evidence-Based Treatment of Angina With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries (ANOCA), 2025, Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
  • Trends in Coronary Artery Disease Screening before Kidney Transplantation, 2021, Kidney360

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Fearon include:

  • Daniel Amponsah
  • Frederik M. Zimmermann
  • Nils P. Johnson
  • Alan C. Yeung
  • Takuya Mizukami

Best Publications

  • Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

    Martin B Leon;Craig R. Smith;Michael J. Mack;Michael J. Mack;Rajendra Makkar

  • Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention

    Bernard De Bruyne;Uwe Siebert;Fumiaki Ikeno;Volker Klauss

  • Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease

    Bernard De Bruyne;Bindu Kalesan;Emanuele Barbato;Zsolt Piroth

  • Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: 2-Year Follow-Up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study

    Nico H.J. Pijls;William F. Fearon;Pim A.L. Tonino;Uwe Siebert;Uwe Siebert

  • Angiographic Versus Functional Severity of Coronary Artery Stenoses in the FAME Study: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation

    Pim A.L. Tonino;William F. Fearon;Bernard De Bruyne;Keith G. Oldroyd

  • Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

    Bernard De Bruyne;William F. Fearon;Nico H.J. Pijls;Emanuele Barbato

  • Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve

    P. Xaplanteris;S. Fournier;N. H. J. Pijls;W. F. Fearon

  • Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document

    Hector M. Garcia-Garcia;Eugène P. McFadden;Andrew Farb;Roxana Mehran

  • Physiological Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology

    Morton J. Kern;Amir Lerman;Jan Willen Bech;Bernard De Bruyne

  • Novel Index for Invasively Assessing the Coronary Microcirculation

    William F. Fearon;Leora B. Balsam;H. M. Omar Farouque;Robert C. Robbins

  • Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes.

    Nils P. Johnson;Gábor G. Tóth;Dejian Lai;Hongjian Zhu

  • Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

    Raj R. Makkar;Vinod H. Thourani;Michael J. Mack;Susheel K. Kodali

  • Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

    Lokien X van Nunen;Frederik M Zimmermann;Pim A L Tonino;Emanuele Barbato

  • Vascular Complications After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) Trial

    Philippe Généreux;John G. Webb;Lars G. Svensson;Susheel K. Kodali

  • Invasive Assessment of the Coronary Microcirculation. Superior Reproducibility and Less Hemodynamic Dependence of Index of Microcirculatory Resistance Compared With Coronary Flow Reserve

    Martin K.C. Ng;Alan C. Yeung;William F. Fearon

  • Economic Evaluation of Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Disease

    William F. Fearon;Bernhard Bornschein;Pim A.L. Tonino;Raffaella M. Gothe

  • Prognostic value of the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance measured after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

    William F. Fearon;Adrian F. Low;Andy S. Yong;Ross McGeoch

  • Coronary pressure measurement after stenting predicts adverse events at follow-up: A multicenter registry

    Nico H.J. Pijls;Volker Klauss;Uwe Siebert;Eric Powers

  • Multicenter Core Laboratory Comparison of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Resting Pd/Pa With Fractional Flow Reserve: The RESOLVE Study

    Allen Jeremias;Akiko Maehara;Philippe Généreux;Kaleab N. Asrress

  • Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials

    Hector M. Garcia-Garcia;Eugene P. McFadden;Andrew Farb;Roxana Mehran

Frequent Co-Authors

Alan C. Yeung
Alan C. Yeung Stanford University
Bernard De Bruyne
Bernard De Bruyne Cardiovascular Center Aalst
Nico H.J. Pijls
Nico H.J. Pijls Eindhoven University of Technology
Peter J. Fitzgerald
Peter J. Fitzgerald Stanford University
Paul G. Yock
Paul G. Yock Stanford University
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Emanuele Barbato
Emanuele Barbato University of Naples Federico II
Colin Berry
Colin Berry University of Glasgow
Keith G. Oldroyd
Keith G. Oldroyd Golden Jubilee National Hospital
D. Craig Miller
D. Craig Miller Stanford 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

For those interested in healthcare careers or expanding their qualifications virtually, there are several online degree options available in the U.S. Nurses looking to advance their education might choose rn bsn online programs no clinicals, which offer flexible coursework and reduced in-person requirements. These programs are ideal for working professionals who need an adaptable schedule.

If you’re already in the nursing field and want to pursue a doctoral degree, the shortest dnp programs allow experienced nurses to earn their Doctor of Nursing Practice efficiently. Additionally, those seeking an easier transition might consider easiest online dnp programs, designed with accessible curricula and streamlined admission requirements.

For those just starting out, becoming a licensed practical nurse can be a speedy pathway into healthcare. Learning about what is the fastest way to become an lpn can help you enter the workforce quickly with minimal prerequisites.

Best Scientists Citing William F. Fearon

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles