↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Distinct immune responses and virus shedding in pigs following aerosol, intra-nasal and contact infection with pandemic swine influenza A virus, A(H1N1)09
Published in
Veterinary Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13567-016-0390-5
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Influenza virus infection in pigs is a major farming problem, causing considerable economic loss and posing a zoonotic threat. In addition the pig is an excellent model for understanding immunity to influenza viruses as this is a natural host pathogen system. Experimentally, influenza virus is delivered to pigs intra-nasally, by intra-tracheal instillation or by aerosol, but there is little data comparing the outcome of different methods. We evaluated the shedding pattern, cytokine responses in nasal swabs and immune responses following delivery of low or high dose swine influenza pdmH1N1 virus to the respiratory tract of pigs intra-nasally or by aerosol and compared them to those induced in naturally infected contact pigs. Our data shows that natural infection by contact induces remarkably high innate and adaptive immune response, although the animals were exposed to a very low virus dose. In contacts, the kinetics of virus shedding were slow and prolonged and more similar to the low dose directly infected animals. In contrast the cytokine profile in nasal swabs, antibody and cellular immune responses of contacts more closely resemble immune responses in high dose directly inoculated animals. Consideration of these differences is important for studies of disease pathogenesis and assessment of vaccine protective efficacy.

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 76 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 %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 17 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,037,029
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research
#339
of 1,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,509
of 336,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research
#10
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 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 1,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 336,526 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 60% of its contemporaries.