World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
84
Citations
39009
World Ranking
14855
National Ranking
7513

Wilson Y. Szeto 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 Wilson Y. Szeto 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: 455 publications — 50th percentile

50% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Wilson Y. Szeto 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 Wilson Y. Szeto 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.

Overview

Wilson Y. Szeto is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with a significant concentration in cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. Other prominent fields of study include pulmonary and respiratory medicine, epidemiology, surgery, and radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging.

The main topics covered by their work consist of:

  • Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Aortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
  • Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
  • Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
  • Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Wilson Y. Szeto's frequently appearing co-authors include:

  • Nimesh D. Desai
  • Vinod H. Thourani
  • Joseph E. Bavaria
  • Joshua C. Grimm
  • John J. Kelly

Common publication venues for their research are:

  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
  • Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
  • European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
  • Circulation
  • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

Notable recent papers include:

  • Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement, 2020, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years, 2023, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk, 2021, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery expert consensus document: Surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissection, 2021, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
  • Echocardiographic Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients, 2020, Circulation

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

  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients

    Michael J. Mack;Martin B. Leon;Vinod H. Thourani;Raj Makkar

  • Two-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

  • Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis

    Vinod H. Thourani;Susheel Kodali;Raj R. Makkar;Howard C. Herrmann

  • Expert consensus document on the treatment of descending thoracic aortic disease using endovascular stent-grafts.

    Lars G. Svensson;Nicholas T. Kouchoukos;D. Craig Miller;Joseph E. Bavaria

  • 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

    Samir R Kapadia;Martin B Leon;Raj R Makkar;E Murat Tuzcu

  • 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d’intervention

    Charanjit S. Rihal;Srihari S. Naidu;Michael M. Givertz;Wilson Y. Szeto

  • Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) Trial and Registry

    Tamim M. Nazif;José M. Dizon;Rebecca T. Hahn;Ke Xu

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

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

  • Protection Against Cerebral Embolism During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

    Samir R. Kapadia;Susheel Kodali;Raj Makkar;Roxana Mehran

  • Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage.

    Philippe Généreux;Philippe Généreux;Philippe Pibarot;Björn Redfors;Michael J Mack

  • Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis A Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) Trial Analysis

    Howard C. Herrmann;Philippe Pibarot;Irene Hueter;Zachary M. Gertz

  • Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

    Danny Dvir;Thierry Bourguignon;Catherine M. Otto;Rebecca T. Hahn

  • Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis

    Susheel Kodali;Vinod H. Thourani;Jonathon White;S. Chris Malaisrie

  • Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

  • Propensity-matched comparisons of clinical outcomes after transapical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER)-I trial substudy.

    Eugene H. Blackstone;Rakesh M. Suri;Jeevanantham Rajeswaran;Vasilis Babaliaros

  • Significance of malperfusion syndromes prior to contemporary surgical repair for acute type A dissection: outcomes and need for additional revascularizations

    Arnar Geirsson;Wilson Y. Szeto;Alberto Pochettino;Michael L. McGarvey

  • Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients

    Vinod H. Thourani;Rakesh M. Suri;Rebecca L. Gunter;Shubin Sheng

  • Non-hematopoietic allograft cells directly activate CD8+ T cells and trigger acute rejection: an alternative mechanism of allorecognition.

    Daniel Kreisel;Alexander S Krupnick;Andrew E Gelman;Friederike H Engels

  • Fate of the residual distal and proximal aorta after acute type a dissection repair using a contemporary surgical reconstruction algorithm.

    Arnar Geirsson;Joseph E. Bavaria;Daniel Swarr;Martin G. Keane

Frequent Co-Authors

Joseph E. Bavaria
Joseph E. Bavaria University of Pennsylvania
Howard C. Herrmann
Howard C. Herrmann University of Pennsylvania
Susheel Kodali
Susheel Kodali Columbia University Medical Center
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Vinod H. Thourani
Vinod H. Thourani Georgetown University
Raj Makkar
Raj Makkar Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Samir R. Kapadia
Samir R. Kapadia Cleveland Clinic
Lars G. Svensson
Lars G. Svensson Cleveland Clinic
Michael J. Mack
Michael J. Mack Scott & White Memorial Hospital
Mathew R. Williams
Mathew R. Williams New York 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

If you're considering a career in medicine but seeking flexible study options, several related online degrees can broaden your opportunities. Nursing is a popular pathway, with many institutions offering cheap online nursing programs that allow you to begin or advance your career without a heavy financial burden.

Registered nurses looking to boost their credentials can explore the cheapest rn to bsn program online, which enables you to earn a Bachelor of Science in Nursing while balancing work and study. For those aspiring to leadership or academic roles, specialized choices such as phd nursing programs online can provide advanced expertise.

If you don't have a nursing background but wish to transition into this field, consider accelerated options like direct entry online msn programs for non-nurses. These programs help you fast-track into nursing leadership roles, opening the door to various career pathways in healthcare. Online degrees make healthcare careers more accessible, flexible, and affordable than ever.

Best Scientists Citing Wilson Y. Szeto

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles