Harvard Catalyst Profiles

Contact, publication, and social network information about Harvard faculty and fellows.

John Quackenbush, Ph.D.

Co-Author

This page shows the publications co-authored by John Quackenbush and Hugo Aerts.
Connection Strength

1.959
  1. Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence. Nature. 2020 10; 586(7829):E14-E16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.231
  2. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018 08; 18(8):500-510.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.199
  3. Histopathological Image QTL Discovery of Immune Infiltration Variants. iScience. 2018 Jul 27; 5:80-89.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.198
  4. Data Analysis Strategies in Medical Imaging. Clin Cancer Res. 2018 08 01; 24(15):3492-3499.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.194
  5. Somatic Mutations Drive Distinct Imaging Phenotypes in Lung Cancer. Cancer Res. 2017 07 15; 77(14):3922-3930.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.183
  6. Exploratory Study to Identify Radiomics Classifiers for Lung Cancer Histology. Front Oncol. 2016; 6:71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.169
  7. Corrigendum: Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014; 5:4644.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.151
  8. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 03; 5:4006.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.149
  9. Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature. 2013 Dec 19; 504(7480):389-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.144
  10. Proceedings of the fourth international molecular pathological epidemiology (MPE) meeting. Cancer Causes Control. 2019 Aug; 30(8):799-811.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  11. Safikhani et al. reply. Nature. 2016 11 30; 540(7631):E6-E8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  12. Safikhani et al. reply. Nature. 2016 11 30; 540(7631):E11-E12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  13. Safikhani et al. reply. Nature. 2016 11 30; 540(7631):E2-E4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  14. Revisiting inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. F1000Res. 2016; 5:2333.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  15. Assessment of pharmacogenomic agreement. F1000Res. 2016; 5:825.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  16. Enhancing reproducibility in cancer drug screening: how do we move forward? Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 01; 74(15):4016-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  17. Comparison and validation of genomic predictors for anticancer drug sensitivity. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jul-Aug; 20(4):597-602.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
Connection Strength
The connection strength for co-authors is the sum of the scores for each of their shared publications.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.
Funded by the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through its Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, grant number UL1TR002541.