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 |
Differential in vivo expression of mycobacterial antigens in Mycobacterium tuberculosisinfected lungs and lymph node tissues
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-14-535 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tehmina Mustafa, Nils Anders Leversen, Lisbet Sviland, Harald Gotten Wiker |
| Abstract |
The clinical course of tuberculosis (TB) infection, bacterial load and the morphology of lesions vary between pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB. Antigens expressed in abundance during infection could represent relevant antigens in the development of diagnostic tools, but little is known about the in vivo expression of various M. tuberculosis antigens in different clinical manifestations. The aim of this study was to study the differences in the presence of major secreted as well as somatic mycobacterial antigens in host tissues during advanced rapidly progressing and fatal pulmonary disease with mainly pneumonic infiltrates and high bacterial load, and to compare this to the presence of the same antigens in TB lymphadenitis cases, which is mainly chronic and self-limiting disease with organised granulomas and lower bacterial load. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
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 03 October 2014.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,794
of 7,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,315
of 256,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#121
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 7,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 256,402 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 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.