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.
Fluorescence in situ hybridization with human chromosome-specific libraries: detection of trisomy 21 and translocations of chromosome 4.
19881.1k citationsD. Pinkel, J. E. Landegent et al.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesprofile →
Detection and mapping of amplified DNA sequences in breast cancer by comparative genomic hybridization.
1994637 citationsAnne Kallioniemi, Olli Kallioniemi et al.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of D. Pinkel'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 D. Pinkel with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites D. Pinkel more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by D. Pinkel. 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 D. Pinkel. The network helps show where D. Pinkel may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of D. Pinkel
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of D. Pinkel.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of D. Pinkel 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 D. Pinkel. D. Pinkel is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Albertson, Donna G., Katherine A. Rauen, Philip D. Cotter, et al.. (2003). High-resolution array CGH A validation study for the detection of submicroscopic deletions in DiGeorge and velo-cardio-facial syndromes. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 73(5). 208.1 indexed citations
4.
Maldonado, Janet L., Jane Fridlyand, Hetal Patel, et al.. (2003). Determinants of BRAF Mutations in Primary Melanomas. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 95(24). 1878–1890.491 indexed citations
Matsumura, Kouji, Anne Kallioniemi, Olli Kallioniemi, et al.. (1992). Deletion of chromosome 17p loci in breast cancer cells detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization.. PubMed. 52(12). 3474–7.102 indexed citations
Trebes, J. E., James M. Brase, Joe W. Gray, et al.. (1990). X-ray laser holography of biological microstructures. OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information). 279–287.2 indexed citations
Pinkel, D., et al.. (1990). Analytical approaches to detection and characterization of disease-linked chromosome aberrations.. PubMed. 6 Suppl 1. 14–9.21 indexed citations
17.
Gray, J. W., et al.. (1990). Molecular cytogenetics using fluorescence in situ hybridization. University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas).4 indexed citations
Pinkel, D., J. E. Landegent, Colin C. Collins, et al.. (1988). Fluorescence in situ hybridization with human chromosome-specific libraries: detection of trisomy 21 and translocations of chromosome 4.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 85(23). 9138–9142.1089 indexed citations breakdown →
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.