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.
Monochromatic aberrations of the human eye in a large population
2001534 citationsJason Porter, Antonio Guirao et al.profile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Jason Porter'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 Jason Porter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jason Porter more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jason Porter. 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 Jason Porter. The network helps show where Jason Porter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jason Porter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jason Porter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jason Porter 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 Jason Porter. Jason Porter is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Patel, Nimesh B., et al.. (2017). Longitudinal repeatability of imaging perfused retinal capillaries in normal human and non-human primate eyes using adaptive optics. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 58(8). 315–315.1 indexed citations
6.
Frishman, Laura J., et al.. (2017). Retinal abnormalities in patients with different severities of traumatic brain injury. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 58(8). 5647–5647.2 indexed citations
7.
Frishman, Laura J., et al.. (2016). Examining retinal structure and function in brain injury patients with homonymous hemianopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 57(12). 5989–5989.1 indexed citations
8.
Sredar, Nripun, Nimesh B. Patel, Hope M Queener, et al.. (2014). In vivo examination of cone photoreceptors in patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa implanted over five years ago with encapsulated Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 55(13). 2619–2619.4 indexed citations
Sredar, Nripun, et al.. (2012). High-resolution Longitudinal Examination Of The Lamina Cribrosa And Optic Nerve Head In Living Non-human Primates With Experimental Glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 53(14). 3697–3697.3 indexed citations
11.
Sredar, Nripun, et al.. (2012). 3D Modeling To Characterize Lamina Cribrosa Pore Geometry Using In Vivo Images From Normal And Glaucomatous Eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 53(14). 815–815.1 indexed citations
Cox, Ian, et al.. (2004). What Causes The Increase in Higher Order Aberrations After LASIK? The Cut, The Flap Manipulation and/or the Ablation?. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 45(13). 211–211.1 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.