↓ Skip to main content

Fun with maths: exploring implications of mathematical models for malaria eradication

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Fun with maths: exploring implications of mathematical models for malaria eradication
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-13-486
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip A Eckhoff, Caitlin A Bever, Jaline Gerardin, Edward A Wenger

Abstract

Mathematical analyses and modelling have an important role informing malaria eradication strategies. Simple mathematical approaches can answer many questions, but it is important to investigate their assumptions and to test whether simple assumptions affect the results. In this note, four examples demonstrate both the effects of model structures and assumptions and also the benefits of using a diversity of model approaches. These examples include the time to eradication, the impact of vaccine efficacy and coverage, drug programs and the effects of duration of infections and delays to treatment, and the influence of seasonality and migration coupling on disease fadeout. An excessively simple structure can miss key results, but simple mathematical approaches can still achieve key results for eradication strategy and define areas for investigation by more complex models.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Cameroon 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 6 12%

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 25 December 2014.
All research outputs
#414,701
of 4,691,823 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#138
of 1,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,150
of 153,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#5
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,691,823 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,804 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 153,167 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 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.