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 |
Bacterial community composition of chronic periodontitis and novel oral sampling sites for detecting disease indicators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbiome, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2049-2618-2-32 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vaia Galimanas, Michael William Hall, Natasha Singh, Michael David Joseph Lynch, Michael Goldberg, Howard Tenenbaum, Dennis Gerard Cvitkovitch, Josh David Neufeld, Dilani Braziunas Senadheera |
| Abstract |
Periodontitis is an infectious and inflammatory disease of polymicrobial etiology that can lead to the destruction of bones and tissues that support the teeth. The management of chronic periodontitis (CP) relies heavily on elimination or at least control of known pathogenic consortia associated with the disease. Until now, microbial plaque obtained from the subgingival (SubG) sites has been the primary focus for bacterial community analysis using deep sequencing. In addition to the use of SubG plaque, here, we investigated whether plaque obtained from supragingival (SupG) and tongue dorsum sites can serve as alternatives for monitoring CP-associated bacterial biomarkers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 13% |
| China | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,961,251
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,125
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,586
of 242,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 242,050 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 53% of its contemporaries.