Peter O’Blenis

447 total citations
11 papers, 274 citations indexed

About

Peter O’Blenis is a scholar working on Health Informatics, Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty and Oncology. According to data from OpenAlex, Peter O’Blenis has authored 11 papers receiving a total of 274 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 4 papers in Health Informatics, 4 papers in Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty and 3 papers in Oncology. Recurrent topics in Peter O’Blenis's work include Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (4 papers), Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education (4 papers) and Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (3 papers). Peter O’Blenis is often cited by papers focused on Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (4 papers), Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education (4 papers) and Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (3 papers). Peter O’Blenis collaborates with scholars based in Canada, France and Poland. Peter O’Blenis's co-authors include Stan Matwin, Diana Inkpen, Oana Frunza, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Tarek Nayfeh, M. Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang, William Klement, Margaret Sampson and Ian D. Graham and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association and BMC Cancer.

In The Last Decade

Peter O’Blenis

11 papers receiving 269 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Peter O’Blenis Canada 6 92 83 50 42 35 11 274
Anita Walden United States 9 66 0.7× 15 0.2× 59 1.2× 19 0.5× 13 0.4× 21 265
Angelica Neisa Canada 10 107 1.2× 15 0.2× 36 0.7× 15 0.4× 8 0.2× 10 418
Jerry Sheehan United States 6 59 0.6× 10 0.1× 94 1.9× 27 0.6× 17 0.5× 8 415
Nicolas Griffon France 10 107 1.2× 20 0.2× 129 2.6× 10 0.2× 7 0.2× 43 307
Chaohui Guo China 11 37 0.4× 17 0.2× 17 0.3× 22 0.5× 25 0.7× 46 427
Scott Askin Switzerland 5 37 0.4× 17 0.2× 38 0.8× 68 1.6× 8 0.2× 5 287
Babatunde Kazeem Olorisade United Kingdom 8 67 0.7× 56 0.7× 25 0.5× 23 0.5× 8 0.2× 13 199
Hansi Zhang United States 12 143 1.6× 8 0.1× 91 1.8× 19 0.5× 9 0.3× 28 379
Olga Medvedeva United States 11 258 2.8× 6 0.1× 103 2.1× 43 1.0× 33 0.9× 18 425
Tian Kang United States 10 227 2.5× 33 0.4× 385 7.7× 42 1.0× 7 0.2× 21 556

Countries citing papers authored by Peter O’Blenis

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Peter O’Blenis'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 Peter O’Blenis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter O’Blenis more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Peter O’Blenis

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter O’Blenis. 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 Peter O’Blenis. The network helps show where Peter O’Blenis may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter O’Blenis

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter O’Blenis. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter O’Blenis 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 Peter O’Blenis. Peter O’Blenis is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

11 of 11 papers shown
1.
Wang, Zhen, Tarek Nayfeh, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Peter O’Blenis, & M. Hassan Murad. (2020). Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews. PLoS ONE. 15(1). e0227742–e0227742. 107 indexed citations
2.
O’Blenis, Peter, et al.. (2020). PNS60 Use of Artificial Intelligence with Distillersr Software in Selected Systematic Literature Reviews. Value in Health Regional Issues. 22. S92–S92. 2 indexed citations
3.
Tetzlaff, Jennifer, et al.. (2019). PNS15 PRAGMATIC ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED REFERENCE SCREENING IN SYSTEMATIC REVEIWS. ARE TWO ROBOTS BETTER THAN ONE?. Value in Health. 22. S290–S290. 2 indexed citations
6.
Frunza, Oana, Diana Inkpen, Stan Matwin, William Klement, & Peter O’Blenis. (2010). Exploiting the systematic review protocol for classification of medical abstracts. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 51(1). 17–25. 35 indexed citations
7.
Matwin, Stan, et al.. (2010). Performance of SVM and Bayesian classifiers on the systematic review classification task. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 18(1). 104.2–105. 8 indexed citations
8.
Matwin, Stan, et al.. (2010). A new algorithm for reducing the workload of experts in performing systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 17(4). 446–453. 71 indexed citations
9.
Schachter, Howard, Vasil Mamaladze, Gabriela Lewin, et al.. (2006). Many quality measurements, but few quality measures assessing the quality of breast cancer care in women: A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 6(1). 291–291. 23 indexed citations
10.
Moher, David, Howard Schachter, Vasil Mamaladze, et al.. (2004). Measuring the Quality of Breast Cancer Care in Women: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, Number 105'. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 1–8. 18 indexed citations
11.
Moher, David, Vasil Mamaladze, C. DeGrasse, et al.. (2004). Measuring the Quality of Breast Cancer Care in Women: Summary. 4 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026