Frederick C. Ames

126 papers receiving 8.3k citations

Peers

Frederick C. Ames
Comparison fields: 5 of 123
  • Cancer Research 5.8k
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine 3.7k
  • Oncology 3.7k
  • Surgery 3.2k
  • Dermatology 621
Replace Gildy V. Babiera with:
Gildy V. Babiera United States
Marsha D. McNeese United States
Blake Cady United States
Barbara Silver United States
R Zucali Italy
Mattia Intra Italy
Ann Brown United States
Eleanor D. Montague United States
G Contesso France
David J. Winchester United States
Frederick C. Ames relative to Gildy V. Babiera United States Gildy V. Babiera's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Gildy V. Babiera · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Frederick C. Ames

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Frederick C. Ames'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 Frederick C. Ames with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frederick C. Ames more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Frederick C. Ames

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Frederick C. Ames. 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 Frederick C. Ames. The network helps show where Frederick C. Ames may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Frederick C. Ames, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Frederick C. Ames Line = papers co-authored together Frederick C. Ames links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 127 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1988389
2
Pathological assessment of response to induction chemotherapy in breast cancer.
1986277
3 1999249
4 2000226
5 2003217
6 2007200
7 1999188
8 2006187
9 1997186
10 2002185
11 1998179
12 1989166
13 2003158
14 2004157
15 2002154
16 2001152
17 1989149
18 2001148
19 1994138
20 2004136

About Frederick C. Ames

Frederick C. Ames is a scholar working on Cancer Research, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Oncology, Surgery and Dermatology, having authored 127 papers that have together received 8.6k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Breast Cancer Treatment Studies (87 papers), Breast Lesions and Carcinomas (55 papers), Breast Implant and Reconstruction (43 papers), Cancer Treatment and Pharmacology (14 papers), BRCA gene mutations in cancer (9 papers), Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics (8 papers), Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment (8 papers) and Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques (7 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Cancer Research (5.8k citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (3.7k citations), Oncology (3.7k citations), Surgery (3.2k citations) and Dermatology (621 citations). Frederick C. Ames has collaborated with scholars based in United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland. Frequent co-authors include Henry M. Kuerer, Kelly K. Hunt, Merrick I. Ross, S. Eva Singletary, Barry W. Feig, Gabriel N. Hortobágyi, Aman U. Buzdar, Gildy V. Babiera, Marsha D. McNeese and Thomas A. Buchholz. Their work appears in journals such as Cancer, Annals of Surgical Oncology, The American Journal of Surgery, Journal of Clinical Oncology and Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026