↓ Skip to main content

First Attempt To Validate Human IgG Antibody Response to Nterm-34kDa Salivary Peptide as Biomarker for Evaluating Exposure to Aedes aegypti Bites

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
72 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.
Article details
Title
First Attempt To Validate Human IgG Antibody Response to Nterm-34kDa Salivary Peptide as Biomarker for Evaluating Exposure to Aedes aegypti Bites
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001905
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Much effort is being devoted for developing new indicators to evaluate the human exposure to Aedes mosquito bites and the risk of arbovirus transmission. Human antibody (Ab) responses to mosquito salivary components could represent a promising tool for evaluating the human-vector contact.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
French Polynesia 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 67 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 12 17%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 29 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,504,035
of 27,773,453 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,568
of 10,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,306
of 198,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#13
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,773,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 198,881 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 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.