David Defriend
Impact in
- Human-Computer Interaction top 10%
- Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Family Practice top 10%
Papers in
- Surgery 4
- Surgical Simulation and Training 3
-
- Anatomy and Medical Technology 3
- Co-authors
- Samuel J. Vine (3 shared papers)Mark Wilson (3 shared papers)John McGrath (3 shared papers)Richard Masters (2 shared papers)Elizabeth Bright (1 shared paper)Rich S.W. Masters (1 shared paper)Rupert Pullan (2 shared papers)Catherine Walter (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Surgical Endoscopy (3 papers)The Surgeon (1 paper)Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England (1 paper)Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (1 paper)
- Partner nations
- United KingdomHong Kong
In The Last Decade
David Defriend
6 papers receiving 355 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 62
- Human-Computer Interaction 54
- Family Practice 18
- Surgery 218
- Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 74
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 46
Countries citing papers authored by David Defriend
This map shows the geographic impact of David Defriend'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 David Defriend with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Defriend more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by David Defriend
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Defriend. 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 David Defriend. The network helps show where David Defriend may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 11 scholars most cited alongside David Defriend, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2010 | 143 | |
| 2 | 2011 | 139 | |
| 3 | 2011 | 58 | |
| 4 | 2011 | 18 | |
| 5 | 2003 | 2 | |
| 6 | Hormonal therapy for advanced breast cancer | 2001 | 1 |
About David Defriend
David Defriend is a scholar working on Surgery, Biomedical Engineering, Health, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine and General Health Professions, having authored 6 papers that have together received 361 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Anatomy and Medical Technology (3 papers), Surgical Simulation and Training (3 papers), Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes (1 paper), Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments (1 paper), Health Literacy and Information Accessibility (1 paper), Estrogen and related hormone effects (1 paper), Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare (1 paper) and Augmented Reality Applications (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Human-Computer Interaction (54 citations), Family Practice (18 citations), Surgery (218 citations), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (74 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (46 citations). David Defriend has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Frequent co-authors include Samuel J. Vine, Mark Wilson, John McGrath, Richard Masters, Elizabeth Bright, Rich S.W. Masters, Rupert Pullan, Catherine Walter, N J Kenefick and Stephen J. Mitchell. Their work appears in journals such as Surgical Endoscopy, The Surgeon, Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England and Research Explorer (The University of Manchester).
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.