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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic Surveillance Detects Both Clonal and Epidemic Transmission of Malaria following Enhanced Intervention in Senegal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0060780 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Daniels, Hsiao-Han Chang, Papa Diogoye Séne, Danny C. Park, Daniel E. Neafsey, Stephen F. Schaffner, Elizabeth J. Hamilton, Amanda K. Lukens, Daria Van Tyne, Souleymane Mboup, Pardis C. Sabeti, Daouda Ndiaye, Dyann F. Wirth, Daniel L. Hartl, Sarah K. Volkman |
| Abstract |
Using parasite genotyping tools, we screened patients with mild uncomplicated malaria seeking treatment at a clinic in Thiès, Senegal, from 2006 to 2011. We identified a growing frequency of infections caused by genetically identical parasite strains, coincident with increased deployment of malaria control interventions and decreased malaria deaths. Parasite genotypes in some cases persisted clonally across dry seasons. The increase in frequency of genetically identical parasite strains corresponded with decrease in the probability of multiple infections. Further, these observations support evidence of both clonal and epidemic population structures. These data provide the first evidence of a temporal correlation between the appearance of identical parasite types and increased malaria control efforts in Africa, which here included distribution of insecticide treated nets (ITNs), use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria detection, and deployment of artemisinin combination therapy (ACT). Our results imply that genetic surveillance can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of disease control strategies and assist a rational global malaria eradication campaign. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,187,333
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,974
of 193,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,353
of 199,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,393
of 5,292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 199,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.