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.
A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability
2020196 citationsSaad Khan, Xiaoxuan Liu et al.The Lancet Digital Healthprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Edward Korot'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 Edward Korot with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Edward Korot more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Edward Korot. 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 Edward Korot. The network helps show where Edward Korot may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Edward Korot
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Edward Korot.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Edward Korot 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 Edward Korot. Edward Korot is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Korot, Edward, Siegfried K. Wagner, Robbert Struyven, et al.. (2021). Investigating the impact of saliency maps on clinician’s confidence in model predictions. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 62(8). 2297–2297.1 indexed citations
Wagner, Siegfried K., et al.. (2021). Using the What-if Tool to perform nearest counterfactual analysis on an AutoML model that predicts visual acuity outcomes in patients receiving treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 62(8). 291–291.2 indexed citations
12.
Korot, Edward, et al.. (2021). Exploring the What-If-Tool as a solution for machine learning explainability in clinical practice. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 62(8). 79–79.1 indexed citations
Balaskas, Konstantinos, Pearse A. Keane, Siegfried K. Wagner, et al.. (2020). Automated classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity RetCam images using the Apple CreateML platform: gradeable versus ungradeable image classification. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 61(7). 2026–2026.1 indexed citations
15.
Zhang, Gongyu, Edward Korot, Reena Chopra, et al.. (2020). Optimising Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration using Reinforcement Learning. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 61(7). 1628–1628.1 indexed citations
Khan, Saad, Xiaoxuan Liu, Siddharth Nath, et al.. (2020). A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability. The Lancet Digital Health. 3(1). e51–e66.196 indexed citations breakdown →
18.
Korot, Edward, Siegfried K. Wagner, Livia Faes, et al.. (2020). AI building AI: Deep Learning Detection of Referable Diabetic Retinopathy Sans-coding. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 61(7). 2025–2025.2 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.