↓ Skip to main content

A Model for Chagas Disease with Oral and Congenital Transmission

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
A Model for Chagas Disease with Oral and Congenital Transmission
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0067267
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Coffield, Anna Maria Spagnuolo, Meir Shillor, Ensela Mema, Bruce Pell, Amanda Pruzinsky, Alexandra Zetye

Abstract

This work presents a new mathematical model for the domestic transmission of Chagas disease, a parasitic disease affecting humans and other mammals throughout Central and South America. The model takes into account congenital transmission in both humans and domestic mammals as well as oral transmission in domestic mammals. The model has time-dependent coefficients to account for seasonality and consists of four nonlinear differential equations, one of which has a delay, for the populations of vectors, infected vectors, infected humans, and infected mammals in the domestic setting. Computer simulations show that congenital transmission has a modest effect on infection while oral transmission in domestic mammals substantially contributes to the spread of the disease. In particular, oral transmission provides an alternative to vector biting as an infection route for the domestic mammals, who are key to the infection cycle. This may lead to high infection rates in domestic mammals even when the vectors have a low preference for biting them, and ultimately results in high infection levels in humans.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 72 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Mathematics 8 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,361,534
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,315
of 194,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,889
of 195,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,675
of 4,784 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 195,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,784 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.