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.
Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009884 citationsHeidi D Nelson, Kari Tyne et al.Annals of Internal Medicineprofile →
Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation
2016395 citationsHeidi D Nelson, Rochelle Fu et al.Annals of Internal Medicineprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Linda Humphrey
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Linda Humphrey'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 Linda Humphrey with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Linda Humphrey more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Linda Humphrey. 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 Linda Humphrey. The network helps show where Linda Humphrey may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Linda Humphrey
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Linda Humphrey.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Linda Humphrey 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 Linda Humphrey. Linda Humphrey is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Nelson, Heidi D, Rochelle Fu, Amy Cantor, et al.. (2016). Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 164(4). 244–255.395 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Deffebach, Mark & Linda Humphrey. (2015). Lung Cancer Screening. Surgical Clinics of North America. 95(5). 967–978.18 indexed citations
7.
Humphrey, Linda, Mark Deffebach, Miranda Pappas, et al.. (2013). Screening for Lung Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).50 indexed citations
Chou, Roger, et al.. (2011). Screening Asymptomatic Adults for Coronary Heart Disease With Resting or Exercise Electrocardiography: Systematic Review to Update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).9 indexed citations
Nelson, Heidi D, Kari Tyne, Arpana Naik, et al.. (2009). Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 151(10). 727–737.884 indexed citations breakdown →
15.
Helfand, Mark, David Buckley, Craig Fleming, et al.. (2009). Screening for Intermediate Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease [Internet].1 indexed citations
16.
Ren, Fu, et al.. (2009). Comparative Effectiveness of Medications To Reduce Risk of Primary Breast Cancer in Women. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).7 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.