↓ 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
4 patents

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Phase I Randomised Clinical Trial of an HIV-1CN54, Clade C, Trimeric Envelope Vaccine Candidate Delivered Vaginally
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025165
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We conducted a phase 1 double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a HIV-1 envelope protein (CN54 gp140) candidate vaccine delivered vaginally to assess immunogenicity and safety. It was hypothesised that repeated delivery of gp140 may facilitate antigen uptake and presentation at this mucosal surface. Twenty two healthy female volunteers aged 18-45 years were entered into the trial, the first receiving open-label active product. Subsequently, 16 women were randomised to receive 9 doses of 100 µg of gp140 in 3 ml of a Carbopol 974P based gel, 5 were randomised to placebo solution in the same gel, delivered vaginally via an applicator. Participants delivered the vaccine three times a week over three weeks during one menstrual cycle, and were followed up for two further months. There were no serious adverse events, and the vaccine was well tolerated. No sustained systemic or local IgG, IgA, or T cell responses to the gp140 were detected following vaginal immunisations. Repeated vaginal immunisation with a HIV-1 envelope protein alone formulated in Carbopol gel was safe, but did not induce local or systemic immune responses in healthy women.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 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 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#5,153,854
of 34,454,098 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#53,053
of 224,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,317
of 181,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#629
of 2,891 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,454,098 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 181,252 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,891 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.