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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
No Evidence for XMRV Nucleic Acids, Infectious Virus or Anti-XMRV Antibodies in Canadian Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0027870 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Imke Steffen, D. Lorne Tyrrell, Eleanor Stein, Leilani Montalvo, Tzong-Hae Lee, Yanchen Zhou, Kai Lu, William M. Switzer, Shaohua Tang, Hongwei Jia, Darren Hockman, Deanna M. Santer, Michael Logan, Amir Landi, John Law, Michael Houghton, Graham Simmons |
| Abstract |
The gammaretroviruses xenotropic murine leukemia virus (MLV)-related virus (XMRV) and MLV have been reported to be more prevalent in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients than in healthy controls. Here, we report the complex analysis of whole blood and plasma samples from 58 CFS patients and 57 controls from Canada for the presence of XMRV/MLV nucleic acids, infectious virus, and XMRV/MLV-specific antibodies. Multiple techniques were employed, including nested and qRT-PCR, cell culture, and immunoblotting. We found no evidence of XMRV or MLV in humans and conclude that CFS is not associated with these gammaretroviruses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 November 2011.
All research outputs
#5,641,102
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#68,384
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,492
of 238,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#713
of 2,616 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 238,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,616 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.