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.
Management and survival of female breast cancer: Results of a national survey by the American college of surgeons
1980515 citationsTakuma Nemoto, J Vána et al.Cancerprofile →
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 Vána'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 Vána with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J Vána more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J Vána. 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 Vána. The network helps show where J Vána may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J Vána
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J Vána.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J Vána 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 Vána. J Vána is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
18 of 18 papers shown
1.
Vána, J, et al.. (2003). [Appendicitis and salmonellosis, a coincidence or etiopathogenically related?].. PubMed. 82(11). 580–2.
Nemoto, Takayuki, J Vána, Nachimuthu Natarajan, Ramez Bedwani, & C Mettlin. (1981). Observations on short-term and long-term surveys of breast cancer by the American College of Surgeons. I. Significance of the number of axillary nodes and II. Estrogen receptor assay in the U.S. in 1977.. PubMed. 4. 209–39.9 indexed citations
8.
Rosner, Dutzu, Ramez Bedwani, J Vána, Harvey W. Baker, & Gerald P. Murphy. (1980). Noninvasive Breast Carcinoma. Annals of Surgery. 192(2). 139–147.209 indexed citations
9.
Nemoto, Takuma, et al.. (1980). Management and survival of female breast cancer: Results of a national survey by the American college of surgeons. Cancer. 45(12). 2917–2924.515 indexed citations breakdown →
10.
Vána, J & Murphy Gp. (1979). Primary malignant liver tumors: association with oral contraceptives.. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). 79(3). 321–5.14 indexed citations
11.
Vána, J, et al.. (1979). Management and survival of carcinoma of the colon: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons.. PubMed. 5(6). 21–5.9 indexed citations
Ea, Mirand, et al.. (1977). Can-Dial: a dial access cancer education service.. PubMed. 20(3). 158–63.6 indexed citations
17.
Murphy, G.P., et al.. (1976). Treatment in prostatic carcinoma in Western New York.. PubMed. 76(6). 869–73.1 indexed citations
18.
Vána, J, et al.. (1964). [DISTRIBUTION OF PSYCHOSES RECORDED AMONG PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS IN A SEGMENT OF THE URBAN POPULATION. I. PREVALENCE].. PubMed. 60. 152–63.1 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.