↓ Skip to main content

Non-specific effects of vaccines: Current evidence and potential implications

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Immunology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 916)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
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.
Title
Non-specific effects of vaccines: Current evidence and potential implications
Published in
Seminars in Immunology, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.smim.2018.06.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

L.C.J. de Bree, Valerie A.C.M. Koeken, Leo A.B. Joosten, Peter Aaby, Christine Stabell Benn, Reinout van Crevel, Mihai G. Netea

Abstract

Besides protection against specific microorganisms, vaccines can induce heterologous or non-specific effects (NSE). Epidemiological data suggest that vaccination with live-attenuated vaccines such as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), measles vaccine, and oral polio vaccine results in increased overall childhood survival, and several of these observations have been confirmed in randomized trials. Immunological mechanisms mediating NSE include heterologous lymphocyte effects and induction of innate immune memory (trained immunity). Trained immunity induces long-term functional upregulation of innate immune cells through epigenetic and metabolic reprogramming. An overview of the epidemiological evidence of non-specific effects of vaccines and the latest insights regarding the biological mechanisms behind this phenomenon is presented, and future research priorities and potential implications are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Master 20 9%
Other 12 6%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 34 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 69 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#639,102
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Immunology
#8
of 916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,712
of 339,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Immunology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 339,498 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them