The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 |
Animal Viruses, Bacteria, and Cancer: A Brief Commentary
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jimmy T. Efird, Stephen W. Davies, Wesley T. O’Neal, Ethan J. Anderson |
| Abstract |
Animal viruses and bacteria are ubiquitous in the environment. However, little is known about their mode of transmission and etiologic role in human cancers, especially among high-risk groups (e.g., farmers, veterinarians, poultry plant workers, pet owners, and infants). Many factors may affect the survival, transmissibility, and carcinogenicity of these agents, depending on the animal-host environment, hygiene practices, climate, travel, herd immunity, and cultural differences in food consumption and preparation. Seasonal variations in immune function also may increase host susceptibility at certain times of the year. The lack of objective measures, inconsistent study designs, and sources of epidemiologic bias (e.g., residual confounding, recall bias, and non-randomized patient selection) are some of the factors that complicate a clear understanding of this subject. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 June 2024.
All research outputs
#3,906,252
of 26,593,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,982
of 15,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,540
of 323,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,593,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 323,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.