↓ Skip to main content

Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus virological and genetic surveillance 2000-2012

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
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.
Title
Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus virological and genetic surveillance 2000-2012
Published in
Ecology, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/ecy.1634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Breyta, Ilana Brito, Gael Kurath, Shannon LaDeau

Abstract

Surveillance records of the acute RNA pathogen of Pacific salmonid fish infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus are combined for the first time to enable landscape-level ecological analyses and modeling. The study area is the freshwater ecosystems of the large Columbia River watershed in the U.S. states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as well as coastal rivers in Washington and Oregon. The study period is 2000-2012, and records were contributed by all five resource management agencies that operate conservation hatcheries in the study area. Additional records from wild fish were collected from the National Wild Fish Health Survey, operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey. After curation and normalization, the data set consists of 6766 records, representing 1146 sample sites and 15 different fish hosts. The virus was found in an average of 12.4% of records, and of these 66.2% also have viral genetic analysis available. This data set is used to conduct univariate ecological and epidemiological analyses and develop a novel hierarchical landscape transmission model for an aquatic pathogen.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 67%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Unspecified 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 56%
Unspecified 2 22%
Environmental Science 1 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#801,101
of 12,860,000 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#453
of 4,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,956
of 368,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#10
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,860,000 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 368,122 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.