The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
A Case of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine-induced Pneumonitis Presenting with Multiple Pulmonary Nodules
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Internal Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2169/internalmedicine.9399-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takeshi Numata, Norihito Hida, Kai Yazaki, Naoki Arai, Kyoko Ota, Hidetoshi Yanai, Takeo Endo |
| Abstract |
A 39-year-old woman received a seasonal influenza vaccine in November 2015 and subsequently experienced malaise, low-grade fever, and chest discomfort. A chest X-ray performed 2 weeks after vaccination showed multiple nodular shadows in both lungs and ground-glass shadows in both lower lung fields. Her bronchoalveolar lavage fluid contained an unusually high number of lymphocytes, and a drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test for seasonal influenza vaccine was positive. Transbronchial lung biopsy revealed the presence of granulomatous inflammation. Thereafter her abnormal chest shadow spontaneously improved. Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with drug-induced pneumonitis due to an influenza vaccine. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Japan | 4 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 96% |
| Scientists | 1 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 04 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,214,058
of 26,362,847 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine
#44
of 2,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,162
of 345,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine
#1
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,362,847 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,998 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 98% 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 345,166 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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.