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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A New Mouse Model for Female Genital Schistosomiasis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002825 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica L. Richardson, Chi-Ling Fu, Luke F. Pennington, Jared D. Honeycutt, Justin L. Odegaard, Yi-Ju Hsieh, Olfat Hammam, Simon L. Conti, Michael H. Hsieh |
| Abstract |
Over 112 million people worldwide are infected with Schistosoma haematobium, one of the most prevalent schistosome species affecting humans. Female genital schistosomiasis (FGS) occurs when S. haematobium eggs are deposited into the female reproductive tract by adult worms, which can lead to pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, genital disfigurement and infertility. Recent evidence suggests co-infection with S. haematobium increases the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. The associated mechanisms remain unclear due to the lack of a tractable animal model. We sought to create a mouse model conducive to the study of immune modulation and genitourinary changes that occur with FGS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,551,826
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,714
of 9,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,069
of 242,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#21
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 242,177 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.