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 |
What was the primary mode of smallpox transmission? Implications for biodefense
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald K. Milton |
| Abstract |
The mode of infection transmission has profound implications for effective containment by public health interventions. The mode of smallpox transmission was never conclusively established. Although, "respiratory droplet" transmission was generally regarded as the primary mode of transmission, the relative importance of large ballistic droplets and fine particle aerosols that remain suspended in air for more than a few seconds was never resolved. This review examines evidence from the history of variolation, data on mucosal infection collected in the last decades of smallpox transmission, aerosol measurements, animal models, reports of smallpox lung among healthcare workers, and the epidemiology of smallpox regarding the potential importance of fine particle aerosol mediated transmission. I introduce briefly the term anisotropic infection to describe the behavior of Variola major in which route of infection appears to have altered the severity of disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 420 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 | 70 | 17% |
| Canada | 37 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 23 | 5% |
| France | 10 | 2% |
| Australia | 9 | 2% |
| Spain | 7 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Curaçao | 3 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 32 | 8% |
| Unknown | 223 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 361 | 86% |
| Scientists | 26 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 25 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 90 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 414. 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 14 April 2024.
All research outputs
#72,280
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#13
of 8,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256
of 252,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#1
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 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 8,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 252,053 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 114 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.