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 |
HIV-1 vaccine-induced immunity in the test-of-concept Step Study: a case–cohort analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61592-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M Juliana McElrath, Stephen C De Rosa, Zoe Moodie, Sheri Dubey, Lisa Kierstead, Holly Janes, Olivier D Defawe, Donald K Carter, John Hural, Rama Akondy, Susan P Buchbinder, Michael N Robertson, Devan V Mehrotra, Steven G Self, Lawrence Corey, John W Shiver, Danilo R Casimiro, the Step Study Protocol Team |
| Abstract |
In the Step Study, the MRKAd5 HIV-1 gag/pol/nef vaccine did not reduce plasma viraemia after infection, and HIV-1 incidence was higher in vaccine-treated than in placebo-treated men with pre-existing adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5) immunity. We assessed vaccine-induced immunity and its potential contributions to infection risk. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 228 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 21% |
| Researcher | 48 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 78 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 23% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 31 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Unknown | 36 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,655,845
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#14,764
of 42,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,744
of 100,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#61
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. 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 100,188 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 66% of its contemporaries.