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.
Voriconazole Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Patients with Invasive Mycoses Improves Efficacy and Safety Outcomes
2007667 citationsAndrés Pascual, Thierry Calandra et al.Clinical Infectious Diseasesprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of J. Bille'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 J. Bille with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J. Bille more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J. Bille. 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 J. Bille. The network helps show where J. Bille may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J. Bille
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J. Bille.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J. Bille 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 J. Bille. J. Bille is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Arıkan, S., Francesco Barchiesi, J. Bille, et al.. (2009). The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing-Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST-AFST) EUCAST Technical Note on fluconazole.. Clinical Microbiology and Infection.12 indexed citations
3.
Arıkan, S., Francesco Barchiesi, J. Bille, et al.. (2009). Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. EUCAST Technical Note on the method for the determination of broth dilution minimum inhibitory concentrations of antifungal agents for conidia-forming moulds.. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 15(1). 103–103.111 indexed citations
Pascual, Andrés, Thierry Calandra, S. Bolay, et al.. (2007). Voriconazole Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Patients with Invasive Mycoses Improves Efficacy and Safety Outcomes. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 46(2). 201–211.667 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Sanglard, Dominique & J. Bille. (2002). Current understanding of the modes of action and resistance mechanisms to conventional and emerging antifungal agents for treatment of Candida infections.. IRIS. 349–383.38 indexed citations
Bille, J., et al.. (1991). [Antibiotic sensitivity of bacteria isolated in the laboratory of a small hospital compared to those of a large hospital].. PubMed. 111(2). 151–6.3 indexed citations
11.
Bille, J., et al.. (1988). [Clinical spectrum of a common and insidious pathogen: Streptococcus milleri].. PubMed. 118(39). 1393–7.1 indexed citations
12.
Bille, J., et al.. (1986). [Invasive Haemophilus infections in adults].. PubMed. 116(51). 1798–802.1 indexed citations
13.
Francioli, P, et al.. (1984). [Brucellosis: a varied clinical presentation in 9 patients].. PubMed. 114(51). 1906–9.3 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.