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 |
Helminth-infected patients with malaria: a low profile transmission hub?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-11-376 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathieu Nacher |
| Abstract |
Eclipsed by the debates about malaria incidence and severity in individual patients, malaria transmission in helminth-infected persons has so far received very little attention. Studies in humans have shown increased malaria incidence and prevalence, and a trend for a reduction of symptoms in patients with malaria. This suggests that such patients could possibly be less likely to seek treatment thus carrying malaria parasites and their gametocytes for longer durations, therefore, being a greater potential source of transmission. In addition, in humans, a study showed increased gametocyte carriage, and in an animal model of helminth-malaria co-infection, there was increased malaria transmission. These elements converge towards the hypothesis that patients co-infected with worms and malaria may represent a hub of malaria transmission. The test of this hypothesis requires verifying, in different epidemiological settings, that helminth-infected patients have more gametocytes, that they have less symptomatic malaria and longer-lasting infections, and that they are more attractive for the vectors. The negative outcome in one setting of one of the above aspects does not necessarily mean that the other two aspects may suffice to increase transmission. If it is verified that patients co-infected by worms and malaria could be a transmission hub, this would be an interesting piece of strategic information in the context of the spread of anti-malarial resistance and the malaria eradication attempts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 21% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,966,905
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#663
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,338
of 182,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#10
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 182,410 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.