↓ Skip to main content

Emerging and Re-emerging Viral Infections

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 199: How to Tackle Natural Focal Infections: From Risk Assessment to Vaccination Strategies
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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.
Chapter title
How to Tackle Natural Focal Infections: From Risk Assessment to Vaccination Strategies
Chapter number 199
Book title
Emerging and Re-emerging Viral Infections
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/5584_2016_199
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-952484-9, 978-3-31-952485-6
Authors

Luca Busani, Alexander E. Platonov, Onder Ergonul, Giovanni Rezza

Abstract

Natural focal diseases are caused by biological agents associated with specific landscapes. The natural focus of such diseases is defined as any natural ecosystem containing the pathogen's population as an essential component. In such context, the agent circulates independently on human presence, and humans may become accidentally infected through contact with vectors or reservoirs. Some viruses (i.e., tick-borne encephalitis and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever virus) are paradigmatic examples of natural focal diseases. When environmental changes, increase of reservoir/vector populations, demographic pressure, and/or changes in human behavior occur, increased risk of exposure to the pathogen may lead to clusters of cases or even to larger outbreaks. Intervention is often not highly cost-effective, thus only a few examples of large-scale or even targeted vaccination campaigns are reported in the international literature. To develop intervention models, risk assessment through disease mapping is an essential component of the response against these neglected threats and key to the design of prevention strategies, especially when effective vaccines against the disease are available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Psychology 4 15%
Environmental Science 3 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 5 19%
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 04 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,880,829
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,109
of 4,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,231
of 310,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#44
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 310,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.