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.
Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials
20101.3k citationsDavid Grimwade, Robert K. Hills et al.Bloodprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of S Chatters'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 S Chatters with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites S Chatters more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by S Chatters. 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 S Chatters. The network helps show where S Chatters may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of S Chatters
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of S Chatters.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of S Chatters 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 S Chatters. S Chatters is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
8 of 8 papers shown
1.
Grimwade, David, Robert K. Hills, Anthony V. Moorman, et al.. (2010). Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukaemia: Determination of prognostic significance of rarer recurring chromosomal abnormalities amongst 5,876 younger adult patients treated in the UK Medical Research Council trials. British Journal of Haematology. 149. 17–17.29 indexed citations
2.
Grimwade, David, Robert K. Hills, Anthony V. Moorman, et al.. (2010). Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials. Blood. 116(3). 354–365.1282 indexed citations breakdown →
3.
Grimwade, David, Robert K. Hills, Anthony V. Moorman, et al.. (2009). REFINEMENT OF CYTOGENETIC CLASSIFICATION IN AML: DETERMINATION OF PROGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF RARE RECURRING CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES AMONGST 5635 YOUNGER ADULTS TREATED IN THE UK MRC TRIALS. Haematologica. 94. 217–217.5 indexed citations
Grimwade, David, S Chatters, Christine J. Harrison, et al.. (2002). Refinement of cytogenetic classification in AML: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities amongst patients entered into the UK MRC AML 10 & 12 trials.. Blood. 100(11).3 indexed citations
6.
Grimwade, David, et al.. (1999). The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics in older patients with AML: Analysis of 922 patients entered into the MRC AML 11 trial.. British Journal of Haematology. 105. 67–67.5 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.