Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Thomas R. FlemingJohn H. Powers
- Journal
- Statistics in Medicine
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1002/sim.5403 →Countries where authors are citing Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials
This map shows the geographic impact of Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. 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 Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials
This network shows the impact of Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials.
About Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials
This paper, published in 2012, received 340 indexed citations . Written by Thomas R. Fleming and John H. Powers covering the research area of Statistics and Probability, Economics and Econometrics and Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (60 citations), Economics and Econometrics (48 citations), Molecular Biology (34 citations), Statistics and Probability (32 citations) and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (30 citations). Published in Statistics in Medicine.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1002/sim.5403.