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.
Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening for Prostate Cancer
2018347 citationsJoshua J. Fenton, Meghan S. Weyrich et al.JAMAprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Meghan S. Weyrich
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Meghan S. Weyrich'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 Meghan S. Weyrich with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Meghan S. Weyrich more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Meghan S. Weyrich
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Meghan S. Weyrich. 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 Meghan S. Weyrich. The network helps show where Meghan S. Weyrich may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Meghan S. Weyrich
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Meghan S. Weyrich.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Meghan S. Weyrich 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 Meghan S. Weyrich. Meghan S. Weyrich is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
17 of 17 papers shown
1.
Henderson, Jillian T., et al.. (2024). Screening for Breast Cancer. JAMA. 331(22). 1931–1931.27 indexed citations
Guirguis‐Blake, Janelle, Corinne V. Evans, Elizabeth M. Webber, et al.. (2021). Screening for Hypertension in Adults. JAMA. 325(16). 1657–1657.69 indexed citations
5.
Guirguis‐Blake, Janelle, Corinne V. Evans, Elizabeth M. Webber, et al.. (2021). Screening for Hypertension in Adults: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).
O’Connor, Elizabeth, Caitlyn A Senger, Michelle L. Henninger, et al.. (2019). Interventions to Prevent Perinatal Depression: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).9 indexed citations
9.
Fenton, Joshua J., Meghan S. Weyrich, Shauna Durbin, et al.. (2018). Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).15 indexed citations
10.
Fenton, Joshua J., Meghan S. Weyrich, Shauna Durbin, et al.. (2018). Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening for Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 319(18). 1914–1914.347 indexed citations breakdown →
Melnikow, Joy, Joshua J. Fenton, Diana L. Miglioretti, Evelyn P Whitlock, & Meghan S. Weyrich. (2016). Screening for Breast Cancer With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Europe PMC (PubMed Central).9 indexed citations
Melnikow, Joy, Joshua J. Fenton, Diana L. Miglioretti, Evelyn P Whitlock, & Meghan S. Weyrich. (2016). Screening for Breast Cancer With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis [Internet].1 indexed citations
16.
Melnikow, Joy, Joshua J. Fenton, Evelyn P Whitlock, et al.. (2016). Table 1, BI-RADS Breast Density Descriptions.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.