You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Characterization of Fitzroy River Virus and Serologic Evidence of Human and Animal Infection - Volume 23, Number 8—August 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2308.161440 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheryl A. Johansen, Simon H. Williams, Lorna F. Melville, Jay Nicholson, Roy A. Hall, Helle Bielefeldt-Ohmann, Natalie A. Prow, Glenys R. Chidlow, Shani Wong, Rohini Sinha, David T. Williams, W. Ian Lipkin, David W. Smith |
| Abstract |
In northern Western Australia in 2011 and 2012, surveillance detected a novel arbovirus in mosquitoes. Genetic and phenotypic analyses confirmed that the new flavivirus, named Fitzroy River virus, is related to Sepik virus and Wesselsbron virus, in the yellow fever virus group. Most (81%) isolates came from Aedes normanensis mosquitoes, providing circumstantial evidence of the probable vector. In cell culture, Fitzroy River virus replicated in mosquito (C6/36), mammalian (Vero, PSEK, and BSR), and avian (DF-1) cells. It also infected intraperitoneally inoculated weanling mice and caused mild clinical disease in 3 intracranially inoculated mice. Specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in sentinel horses (12.6%), cattle (6.6%), and chickens (0.5%) in the Northern Territory of Australia and in a subset of humans (0.8%) from northern Western Australia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 States | 7 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
| Nepal | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Brazil | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 39% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,431,487
of 24,506,807 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#3,298
of 9,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,758
of 321,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#57
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,506,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 321,523 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 52% of its contemporaries.