| Title |
Detection of Tickborne Relapsing Fever Spirochete, Austin, Texas, USA - Volume 24, Number 11—November 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2411.172033 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jack D. Bissett, Suzanne Ledet, Aparna Krishnavajhala, Brittany A. Armstrong, Anna Klioueva, Christopher Sexton, Adam Replogle, Martin E. Schriefer, Job E. Lopez |
| Abstract |
In March 2017, a patient became febrile within 4 days after visiting a rustic conference center in Austin, Texas, USA, where Austin Public Health suspected an outbreak of tickborne relapsing fever a month earlier. Evaluation of a patient blood smear and molecular diagnostic assays identified Borrelia turicatae as the causative agent. We could not gain access to the property to collect ticks. Thus, we focused efforts at a nearby public park, <1 mile from the suspected exposure site. We trapped Ornithodoros turicata ticks from 2 locations in the park, and laboratory evaluation resulted in cultivation of 3 B. turicatae isolates. Multilocus sequencing of 3 chromosomal loci (flaB, rrs, and gyrB) indicated that the isolates were identical to those of B. turicatae 91E135 (a tick isolate) and BTE5EL (a human isolate). We identified the endemicity of O. turicata ticks and likely emergence of B. turicatae in this city. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 16 | 55% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 66% |
| Scientists | 6 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 23% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,284,183
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,445
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,970
of 446,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#16
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 85% 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 446,784 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.