Pathology and Forensic Medicine

1.3M papers and 31.2M indexed citations i.

About

1.3M papers covering Pathology and Forensic Medicine have received a total of 31.2M indexed citations since 1950. Papers on subfields are most often about the specific topic of Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology, Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment and Genetic factors in colorectal cancer and also cover the fields of Surgery, Oncology and Molecular Biology. Papers citing papers on subfields are usually about Molecular Biology, Surgery and Oncology. Some of the most active scholars covering Pathology and Forensic Medicine are Michael F. Holick, Peter J. Goadsby, Bert Vogelstein, John F. Kurtzke, Hector F. DeLuca, Yoshinobu Kanda, Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Michael G. Fehlings, Derek M. Yellon and Charles S. Lieber.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers citing papers about Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers covering Pathology and Forensic Medicine. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers covering Pathology and Forensic Medicine.

Countries where authors publish papers about Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research in Pathology and Forensic Medicine. 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 papers about Pathology and Forensic Medicine with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Pathology and Forensic Medicine more than expected).

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 fields with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025