↓ Skip to main content

Serological survey of avian H5N2-subtype influenza virus infections in human populations

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Virology, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Serological survey of avian H5N2-subtype influenza virus infections in human populations
Published in
Archives of Virology, February 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00705-009-0319-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshinao Yamazaki, Mikio Doy, Nobuhiko Okabe, Yoshinori Yasui, Kazutoshi Nakashima, Takashi Fujieda, Shin-ichi Yamato, Yuichi Kawata, Tsuyoshi Ogata

Abstract

To investigate the distribution of antibodies against H5N2 influenza virus in humans living in Ibaraki prefecture, Japan, 266 single serum samples were collected to perform serological tests. Results were compared to investigate the relationship between positive results and several factors. The number of positive serum neutralization antibody titers (> or = 40) against avian influenza virus A/H5N2 was significantly greater (P < 0.05) among poultry workers, in comparison to a Japanese healthy population. The geometric mean titers of serum neutralization antibody against A/H5N2 were significantly higher (P < 0.05) among Ibaraki inhabitants and poultry workers (P < 0.0001) when compared to a Japanese healthy population. Seropositivity against A/H5N2 virus was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with age (> or = 50 years old) in poultry workers. These results suggest that seropositivity against H5N2 virus in Ibaraki specimens is significantly higher than those of a Japanese healthy population and that the surveillance of avian influenza viruses is very important to evaluate the invasion or emergence of new pandemic influenza viruses from species other than humans.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 33%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,369,213
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#662
of 4,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,240
of 170,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.