↓ Skip to main content

Mapping Avian Influenza Transmission Risk at the Interface of Domestic Poultry and Wild Birds

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Mapping Avian Influenza Transmission Risk at the Interface of Domestic Poultry and Wild Birds
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2013.00028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diann J. Prosser, Laura L. Hungerford, R. Michael Erwin, Mary Ann Ottinger, John Y. Takekawa, Erle C. Ellis

Abstract

Emergence of avian influenza viruses with high lethality to humans, such as the currently circulating highly pathogenic A(H5N1) (emerged in 1996) and A(H7N9) cause serious concern for the global economic and public health sectors. Understanding the spatial and temporal interface between wild and domestic populations, from which these viruses emerge, is fundamental to taking action. This information, however, is rarely considered in influenza risk models, partly due to a lack of data. We aim to identify areas of high transmission risk between domestic poultry and wild waterfowl in China, the epicenter of both viruses. Two levels of models were developed: one that predicts hotspots of novel virus emergence between domestic and wild birds, and one that incorporates H5N1 risk factors, for which input data exists. Models were produced at 1 and 30 km spatial resolution, and two temporal seasons. Patterns of risk varied between seasons with higher risk in the northeast, central-east, and western regions of China during spring and summer, and in the central and southeastern regions during winter. Monte-Carlo uncertainty analyses indicated varying levels of model confidence, with lowest errors in the densely populated regions of eastern and southern China. Applications and limitations of the models are discussed within.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Unspecified 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Professor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Environmental Science 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,504,989
of 12,494,388 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#535
of 1,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,793
of 151,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,494,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 151,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.