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 |
Trained immunity: a new avenue for tuberculosis vaccine development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Internal Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/joim.12449 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M Lerm, M G Netea |
| Abstract |
Adaptive immunity towards tuberculosis (TB) has been extensively studied for many years. In addition, in recent years the profound contribution of innate immunity to host defence against this disease has become evident. The discovery of pattern recognition receptors, which allow innate immunity to tailor its response to different infectious agents, has challenged the view that this arm of immunity is nonspecific. Evidence is now accumulating that innate immunity can remember a previous exposure to a microorganism and respond differently during a second exposure. Although the specificity and memory of innate immunity cannot compete with the highly sophisticated adaptive immune response, its contribution to host defence against infection and to vaccine-induced immunity should not be underestimated and needs to be explored. Here, we present the concept of trained immunity and discuss how this may contribute to new avenues for control of TB. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 16% |
| Researcher | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 42 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,373,530
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Internal Medicine
#1,232
of 3,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,906
of 396,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Internal Medicine
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 396,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.