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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Coexistence of Avian Influenza Virus H10 and H9 Subtypes among Chickens in Live Poultry Markets during an Outbreak of Human Infection with Novel H10N8 Virus in Nanchang, China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.7883/yoken.jjid.2014.377 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maohong Hu, Xiaodan Li, Xiansheng Ni, Jingwen Wu, Rongbao Gao, Wen Xia, Dayan Wang, Fenglan He, Shengen Chen, Yangqing Liu, Shuangli Guo, Hui Li, Yuelong Shu, Jeffrey W. Bethel, Mingbin Liu, Justin B. Moore, Haiying Chen |
| Abstract |
Human infections with the novel H10N8 virus have raised concerns about pandemic potential worldwide. We report the results of a cross sectional study on avian influenza virus (AIV) in live poultry markets (LPMs) in Nanchang, China after the first patient case with H10N8 virus was reported in the city. A total of 201 specimens tested positive for AIVs of the 618 samples collected from 24 LPMs in Nanchang from December 2013 to January 2014. We found that the LPMs were heavily contaminated by AIVs, with H9, H10 and H5 being the predominant subtypes and more than half of the LPMs providing samples positive for H10 subtype. Moreover, the coexistence of different subtypes was common in LPMs. Of the 201 positive samples, 20.9% (42/201) were mixed infections of different HA subtypes of AIVs. Of the 42 mixed infections, 50% (21/42) were coexistence of H9 and H10 subtypes with or without H5, and were from chicken samples. This indicated that H10N8 virus probably originated from the segment reassortment of H9 and H10 subtypes during the period of emerging of the H10N8 virus. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 March 2015.
All research outputs
#5,378,940
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases
#66
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,762
of 276,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 882 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 276,645 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 77% 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.