↓ Skip to main content

A Microfiltration Device for Urogenital Schistosomiasis Diagnostics

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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 Microfiltration Device for Urogenital Schistosomiasis Diagnostics
Published in
PLoS ONE, April 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154640
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuan Xiao, Yi Lu, Michael Hsieh, Joseph Liao, Pak Kin Wong

Abstract

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease affecting over 200 million people worldwide. This study reports the design and development of a microfiltration device for isolating schistosome eggs in urine for rapid diagnostics of urogenital schistosomiasis. The design of the device comprises a linear array of microfluidic traps to immobilize and separate schistosome eggs. Sequential loading of individual eggs is achieved autonomously by flow resistance, which facilitates observation and enumeration of samples with low-abundance targets. Computational fluid dynamics modeling and experimental characterization are performed to optimize the trapping performance. By optimizing the capture strategy, the trapping efficiency could be achieved at 100% with 300 μl/min and 83% with 3000 μl/min, and the filtration procedure could be finished within 10 min. The trapped eggs can be either recovered for downstream analysis or preserved in situ for whole-mount staining. On-chip phenotyping using confocal laser fluorescence microscopy identifies the microstructure of the trapped schistosome eggs. The device provides a novel microfluidic approach for trapping, counting and on-chip fluorescence characterization of urinal Schistosoma haematobium eggs for clinical and investigative application.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 4 25%
Engineering 3 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Chemistry 2 13%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 3 19%

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 09 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,451,471
of 9,662,012 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#74,392
of 124,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,039
of 275,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#3,209
of 5,031 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,662,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 275,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,031 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.