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.
Preclinical vCJD after blood transfusion in a PRNP codon 129 heterozygous patient
2004612 citationsAlexander Peden, Mark Head et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Mark Head'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 Mark Head with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark Head more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark Head. 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 Mark Head. The network helps show where Mark Head may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark Head
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark Head.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark Head 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 Mark Head. Mark Head is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Ironside, James W., Diane Ritchie, & Mark Head. (2017). Prion diseases. Handbook of clinical neurology. 145. 393–403.64 indexed citations
2.
Peden, Alexander, et al.. (2016). Comparison of the in vitro seeding activity of UK iatrogenic and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease subtypes by real time quaking induced conversion. Prion. 10.1 indexed citations
3.
Head, Mark, Diane Ritchie, Helen Yull, Alexander Peden, & James W. Ironside. (2016). Iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in human growth hormone recipients in the United Kingdom. Prion. 10.
4.
Peden, Alexander, Richard Knight, James W. Ironside, et al.. (2014). Amplification of PrPSc From Fatal Familial Insomnia Brain Tissue using Wild-Type Human PrPC Brain Substrate. Prion. 8. 113–113.1 indexed citations
Head, Mark, Helen Yull, Diane Ritchie, et al.. (2012). Variably protease sensitive prionopathy in the United Kingdom. Clinical Neuropathology. 31(4). 272–273.1 indexed citations
7.
Head, Mark, Helen Yull, Diane Ritchie, et al.. (2012). Comparison of two different protocols for the detection of PrPres type 1 and 2 co-occurrence in sporadic CJD. Prion. 6. 129–130.1 indexed citations
8.
McGuire, Lynne I., Alexander Peden, N. E. J. Appleford, et al.. (2011). Prion seeding activity in cerebrospinal fluid from sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients using real-time QuIC analysis: a potential new diagnostic test?. Prion. 5.2 indexed citations
9.
Ironside, James W., Mark Head, Alexander Peden, & Harry P. Ward. (2010). Asymptomatic vCJD infection detected at autopsy in a UK haemophilic patient. Haemophilia. 16. 29–29.2 indexed citations
Peden, Alexander, M. G. K. Jones, Helen Yull, et al.. (2008). Human platelets as a substrate source for the in vitro amplification of the abnormal prion protein (PrPSc) associated with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Prion.
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.