↓ Skip to main content
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
12 X users
reddit
2 Redditors
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Weather-Dependent Risk for Legionnaires’ Disease, United States - Volume 23, Number 11—November 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.3201/eid2311.170137
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and US weather data, we estimated the probability of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) being diagnosed as Legionnaires' disease (LD). LD risk increases when weather is warm and humid. With warm weather, we found a dose-response relationship between relative humidity and the odds for LD. When the mean temperature was 60°-80°F with high humidity (>80.0%), the odds for CAP being diagnosed with LD were 3.1 times higher than with lower levels of humidity (<50.0%). Thus, in some regions (e.g., the Southwest), LD is rarely the cause of hospitalizations. In other regions and seasons (e.g., the mid-Atlantic in summer), LD is much more common. Thus, suspicion for LD should increase when weather is warm and humid. However, when weather is cold, dry, or extremely hot, empirically treating all CAP patients for LD might contribute to excessive antimicrobial drug use at a population level.

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 profiles of 12 X users 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 82 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 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Engineering 9 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Environmental Science 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 30 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 August 2025.
All research outputs
#3,283,739
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#3,399
of 10,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,608
of 371,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#54
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 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 10,980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 371,748 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 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 65% of its contemporaries.