| Title |
Seoul virus infection and spread in US home-based ratteries—rat and human testing results from a multistate outbreak investigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Infectious Diseases, June 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1093/infdis/jiaa307 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Knust, Shelley Brown, Annabelle de St. Maurice, Shannon Whitmer, Sarah E Koske, Elizabeth Ervin, Ketan Patel, James Graziano, Maria E Morales-Betoulle, Jennifer House, Deborah Cannon, Janna Kerins, Stacy Holzbauer, Connie Austin, Suzanne Gibbons-Burgener, Leah Colton, John Dunn, Sara Zufan, Mary Joung Choi, William R Davis, Cheng-Feng Chiang, Craig R Manning, Linda Roesch, Trevor Shoemaker, Lawrence Purpura, Jennifer McQuiston, Dallin Peterson, Rachel Radcliffe, Ann Garvey, Ellen Christel, Laura Morgan, Joni Scheftel, James Kazmierczak, John D Klena, Stuart T Nichol, Pierre E Rollin, Dee Jones, Susan Weinstein, Peter Buck, Casey Barton Behravesh, Sarah Genzer, Eddie Jackson, Jenks M. Harley, Gregory Langham, George Lathrop, Nishi Patel, Nathaniel Powell, Anne Straily, Ute Ströher, Natalie Marzec, Nhiem Luong, Danielle Stanek, Julie Gabel, Kris Carter, Jodi Lovejoy, Jennifer Brown, Betsy Schroeder, Jennifer Layden, Gary Balsamo, David Blythe, Caroline Castillo, Jennifer Sidge, Mary Grace Stobierski, Victoria Hall, Malia Ireland, Kimberly Signs, Howard Pue, Colin Campbell, Jill Baber, Laura Cronquist, Michelle Feist, Susan Keller, Amber Singh, Karen Gowdy, Dean Middleton, Jan Achenbach, Drew D. Dycus, Aaron Smee, Andre Weltman, Mary Margaret Fill, Heather Henderson, Timothy Jones, Andrew Stephen May, Heather Mullins, Tom Sidwa, Allyn Nakashima, Dennis Foelker, Jordan Dieckman, Rachel F. Klos, Anna Kocharian |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#14,846,648
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#11,581
of 14,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,355
of 434,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#93
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 434,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.