| Title |
Postmortem Findings for 7 Neonates with Congenital Zika Virus Infection - Volume 23, Number 7—July 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2307.162019 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anastácio Q. Sousa, Diane I.M. Cavalcante, Luciano M. Franco, Fernanda M.C. Araújo, Emília T. Sousa, José Telmo Valença-Junior, Dionne B. Rolim, Maria E.L. Melo, Pedro D.T. Sindeaux, Marialva T.F. Araújo, Richard D. Pearson, Mary E. Wilson, Margarida M.L. Pompeu |
| Abstract |
Postmortem examination of 7 neonates with congenital Zika virus infection in Brazil revealed microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, dystrophic calcifications, and severe cortical neuronal depletion in all and arthrogryposis in 6. Other findings were leptomeningeal and brain parenchymal inflammation and pulmonary hypoplasia and lymphocytic infiltration in liver and lungs. Findings confirmed virus neurotropism and multiple organ infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 15 | 43% |
| Brazil | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 17% |
| Scientists | 4 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,173,018
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,323
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,292
of 324,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#18
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 324,080 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.