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 |
Gnathostoma spinigerumin Live Asian Swamp Eels (Monopterusspp.) from Food Markets and Wild Populations, United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2004.131566 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca A. Cole, Anindo Choudhury, Leo G. Nico, Kathryn M. Griffin |
| Abstract |
In Southeast Asia, swamp eels (Synbranchidae: Monopterus spp.) are a common source of human gnathostomiasis, a foodborne zoonosis caused by advanced third-stage larvae (AL3) of Gnathostoma spp. nematodes. Live Asian swamp eels are imported to US ethnic food markets, and wild populations exist in several states. To determine whether these eels are infected, we examined 47 eels from markets and 67 wild-caught specimens. Nematodes were identified by morphologic features and ribosomal intergenic transcribed spacer-2 gene sequencing. Thirteen (27.7%) M. cuchia eels from markets were infected with 36 live G. spinigerum AL3: 21 (58.3%) in liver; 7 (19.4%) in muscle; 5 (13.8%) in gastrointestinal tract, and 3 (8.3%) in kidneys. Three (4.5%) wild-caught M. albus eels were infected with 5 G. turgidum AL3 in muscle, and 1 G. lamothei AL3 was found in a kidney (both North American spp.). Imported live eels are a potential source of human gnathostomiasis in the United States. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 22% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 10 May 2014.
All research outputs
#715,738
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#865
of 9,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,537
of 226,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#14
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 226,101 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.