The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 |
How can we design better vaccines to prevent HIV infection in women?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00572 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah Rafferty, Sengeziwe Sibeko, Sarah Rowland-Jones |
| Abstract |
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) burden in women continues to increase, and heterosexual contact is now the most common route of infection worldwide. Effective protection of women against HIV-1 infection may require a vaccine specifically targeting mucosal immune responses in the female genital tract (FGT). To achieve this goal, a much better understanding of the immunology of the FGT is needed. Here we review the architecture of the immune system of the FGT, recent studies of potential methods to achieve the goal of mucosal protection in women, including systemic-prime, mucosal-boost, FGT-tropic vectors and immune response altering adjuvants. Advances in other fields that enhance our understanding of female genital immune correlates and the interplay between hormonal and immunological systems may also help to achieve protection of women from HIV infection. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 24% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,204,846
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#12,351
of 24,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,070
of 262,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#118
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.