↓ Skip to main content

Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 158,362)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
49 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
1841 tweeters
facebook
20 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
5 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
195 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
330 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
Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus
Published in
PLoS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chien-Te Tseng, Elena Sbrana, Naoko Iwata-Yoshikawa, Patrick C. Newman, Tania Garron, Robert L. Atmar, Clarence J. Peters, Robert B. Couch

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated. Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,841 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 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 328 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 64 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 15%
Student > Master 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 36 11%
Other 24 7%
Other 55 17%
Unknown 57 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 55 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 10%
Engineering 14 4%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 72 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1883. 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 26 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,970
of 16,094,294 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#28
of 158,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10
of 137,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2
of 4,075 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,094,294 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 137,899 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,075 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.