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 |
Vaccination against Lyme disease: past, present, and future
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2013.00006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica E. Embers, Sukanya Narasimhan |
| Abstract |
Lyme borreliosis is a zoonotic disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato bacteria transmitted to humans and domestic animals by the bite of an Ixodes spp. tick (deer tick). Despite improvements in diagnostic tests and public awareness of Lyme disease, the reported cases have increased over the past decade to approximately 30,000 per year. Limitations and failed public acceptance of a human vaccine, comprised of the outer surface A (OspA) lipoprotein of B. burgdorferi, led to its demise, yet current research has opened doors to new strategies for protection against Lyme disease. In this review we discuss the enzootic cycle of B. burgdorferi, and the unique opportunities it poses to block infection or transmission at different levels. We present the correlates of protection for this infectious disease, the pros and cons of past vaccination strategies, and new paradigms for future vaccine design that would include elements of both the vector and the pathogen. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 127 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 11 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,281,344
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#188
of 6,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,896
of 283,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#9
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 283,605 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 90% of its contemporaries.