| Title |
Peripheral blood monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio at study enrollment predicts efficacy of the RTS,S malaria vaccine: analysis of pooled phase II clinical trial data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-184 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George M Warimwe, Helen A Fletcher, Ally Olotu, Selidji T Agnandji, Adrian VS Hill, Kevin Marsh, Philip Bejon |
| Abstract |
RTS,S is the most advanced candidate malaria vaccine but it is only partially protective and the causes of inter-individual variation in efficacy are poorly understood. Here, we investigated whether peripheral blood monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratios (ML ratio), previously shown to correlate with clinical malaria risk, could account for differences in RTS,S efficacy among phase II trial participants in Africa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Burkina Faso | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 20% |
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,585,065
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,108
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,694
of 199,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#25
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 199,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 54% of its contemporaries.