↓ Skip to main content

Phylodynamic applications in 21st century global infectious disease research

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Phylodynamic applications in 21st century global infectious disease research
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41256-017-0034-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany D Rife, Carla Mavian, Xinguang Chen, Massimo Ciccozzi, Marco Salemi, Jae Min, Mattia CF Prosperi

Abstract

Phylodynamics, the study of the interaction between epidemiological and pathogen evolutionary processes within and among populations, was originally defined in the context of rapidly evolving viruses and used to characterize transmission dynamics. The concept of phylodynamics has evolved since the early 21st century, extending its reach to slower-evolving pathogens, including bacteria and fungi, and to the identification of influential factors in disease spread and pathogen population dynamics. The phylodynamic approach has now become a fundamental building block for the development of comparative phylogenetic tools capable of incorporating epidemiological surveillance data with molecular sequences into a single statistical framework. These innovative tools have greatly enhanced scientific investigations of the temporal and geographical origins, evolutionary history, and ecological risk factors associated with the growth and spread of viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Zika, and dengue and bacteria such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Capitalizing on an extensive review of the literature, we discuss the evolution of the field of infectious disease epidemiology and recent accomplishments, highlighting the advancements in phylodynamics, as well as the challenges and limitations currently facing researchers studying emerging pathogen epidemics across the globe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 20%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 27 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,574,541
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Research and Policy
#146
of 200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,921
of 310,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Research and Policy
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 310,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.