↓ Skip to main content

Using Modelling to Disentangle the Relative Contributions of Zoonotic and Anthroponotic Transmission: The Case of Lassa Fever

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
252 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
Using Modelling to Disentangle the Relative Contributions of Zoonotic and Anthroponotic Transmission: The Case of Lassa Fever
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003398
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Zoonotic infections, which transmit from animals to humans, form the majority of new human pathogens. Following zoonotic transmission, the pathogen may already have, or may acquire, the ability to transmit from human to human. With infections such as Lassa fever (LF), an often fatal, rodent-borne, hemorrhagic fever common in areas of West Africa, rodent-to-rodent, rodent-to-human, human-to-human and even human-to-rodent transmission patterns are possible. Indeed, large hospital-related outbreaks have been reported. Estimating the proportion of transmission due to human-to-human routes and related patterns (e.g. existence of super-spreaders), in these scenarios is challenging, but essential for planned interventions.

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 17 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 252 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 %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 248 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 19%
Researcher 41 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 62 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 79 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 26 September 2021.
All research outputs
#585,794
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#257
of 10,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,943
of 408,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#6
of 167 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 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 408,232 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 96% of its contemporaries.