↓ Skip to main content

A framework for assessing the risk of resistance for anti-malarials in development

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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 framework for assessing the risk of resistance for anti-malarials in development
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-11-292
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier C Ding, David Ubben, Timothy NC Wells

Abstract

Resistance is a constant challenge for anti-infective drug development. Since they kill sensitive organisms, anti-infective agents are bound to exert an evolutionary pressure toward the emergence and spread of resistance mechanisms, if such resistance can arise by stochastic mutation events. New classes of medicines under development must be designed or selected to stay ahead in this vicious circle of resistance control. This involves both circumventing existing resistance mechanisms and selecting molecules which are resilient against the development and spread of resistance. Cell-based screening methods have led to a renaissance of new classes of anti-malarial medicines, offering us the potential to select and modify molecules based on their resistance potential. To that end, a standardized in vitro methodology to assess quantitatively these characteristics in Plasmodium falciparum during the early phases of the drug development process has been developed and is presented here. It allows the identification of anti-malarial compounds with overt resistance risks and the prioritization of the most robust ones. The integration of this strategy in later stages of development, registration, and deployment is also discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 24%
Other 11 15%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Chemistry 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#899,328
of 14,909,741 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#165
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,122
of 130,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,909,741 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 130,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.