↓ Skip to main content

Tick-Borne Pathogen – Reversed and Conventional Discovery of Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
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.
Title
Tick-Borne Pathogen – Reversed and Conventional Discovery of Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Tijsse-Klasen, Marion P. G. Koopmans, Hein Sprong

Abstract

Molecular methods have increased the number of known microorganisms associated with ticks significantly. Some of these newly identified microorganisms are readily linked to human disease while others are yet unknown to cause human disease. The face of tick-borne disease discovery has changed with more diseases now being discovered in a "reversed way," detecting disease cases only years after the tick-borne microorganism was first discovered. Compared to the conventional discovery of infectious diseases, reverse order discovery presents researchers with new challenges. Estimating public health risks of such agents is especially challenging, as case definitions and diagnostic procedures may initially be missing. We discuss the advantages and shortcomings of molecular methods, serology, and epidemiological studies that might be used to study some fundamental questions regarding newly identified tick-borne diseases. With increased tick-exposure and improved detection methods, more tick-borne microorganisms will be added to the list of pathogens causing disease in humans in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Spain 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 29%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,595,612
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,935
of 13,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,851
of 231,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#20
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 231,137 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 68% of its contemporaries.