Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Reporting results of cancer treatment
19816.8k citationsBarth Hoogstraten et al.Cancerprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Barth Hoogstraten
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Barth Hoogstraten's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Barth Hoogstraten with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Barth Hoogstraten more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Barth Hoogstraten
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Barth Hoogstraten. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Barth Hoogstraten. The network helps show where Barth Hoogstraten may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Barth Hoogstraten
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Barth Hoogstraten.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Barth Hoogstraten based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Barth Hoogstraten. Barth Hoogstraten is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Ratanatharathorn, V., et al.. (1982). Phase II trial of dianhydrogalactitol in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study.. PubMed. 66(5). 1231–2.1 indexed citations
7.
Hoogstraten, Barth, et al.. (1981). Phase I evaluation of IMPY in a twice weekly schedule.. PubMed. 65(5-6). 439–41.3 indexed citations
8.
Panettiere, Frank J., et al.. (1981). Phase II evaluation of VP-16-213 in patients with advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study.. PubMed. 65(5-6). 443–5.18 indexed citations
Hoogstraten, Barth, Robert M. OʼBryan, & Steve Jones. (1978). 1,2:5,6-Dianhydrogalactitol in advanced breast cancer.. PubMed. 62(5). 841–2.2 indexed citations
12.
Stephens, Ronald L., Barth Hoogstraten, Charles D. Haas, & Gary M. Clark. (1978). Pancreatic cancer treated with carmustine, fluorouracil, and spironolactone: a randomized study.. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). 138(1). 115–7.6 indexed citations
13.
Hoogstraten, Barth, et al.. (1978). Chromomycin A3 for advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study.. PubMed. 62(1). 19–22.4 indexed citations
Gottlieb, Jeffrey A., Robert S. Benjamin, Laurence H. Baker, et al.. (1976). Role of DTIC (NSC-45388) in the chemotherapy of sarcomas.. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). 60(2). 199–203.114 indexed citations
17.
Tranum, Bill L., Ronald L. Stephens, Daniel E. Lehane, et al.. (1975). Adriamycin (NSC-123127) plus 5-fluorouracil (NSC-19893): a phase I study.. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). 59(6). 1163–5.1 indexed citations
Rr, Ellison, Barth Hoogstraten, Holland Jf, et al.. (1972). Intermittent therapy with 6-mercaptopurine (NSC-755) and methotrexate (NSC-740) given intravenously to adults with acute leukemia.. PubMed. 56(4). 535–42.3 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.