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 |
Comparison of four lung scoring systems for the assessment of the pathological outcomes derived from Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniaeexperimental infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-6148-10-165 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marina Sibila, Virginia Aragón, Lorenzo Fraile, Joaquim Segalés |
| Abstract |
In this study, four lung lesion scoring methods (Slaughterhouse Pleurisy Evaluation System [SPES], Consolidation Lung Lesion Score [LLS], Image analyses [IA] and Ratio of lung weight/body weight [LW/BW]) were compared for the assessment of the different pathological outcomes derived from an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (App) experimental infection model. Moreover, pathological data was coupled with clinical (fever, inappetence and clinical score), production (average daily weigh gain [ADWG]) and diagnostic (PCR, ELISA and bacterial isolation) parameters within the four infection outcomes (peracute, acute, subclinically infected and non-infected). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 29 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#2,106
of 3,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,407
of 240,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#33
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 240,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.