↓ Skip to main content

Toxins as biological weapons for terror—characteristics, challenges and medical countermeasures: a mini-review

Overview of attention for article published in Disaster and Military Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Toxins as biological weapons for terror—characteristics, challenges and medical countermeasures: a mini-review
Published in
Disaster and Military Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40696-016-0017-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamar Berger, Arik Eisenkraft, Erez Bar-Haim, Michael Kassirer, Adi Avniel Aran, Itay Fogel

Abstract

Toxins are hazardous biochemical compounds derived from bacteria, fungi, or plants. Some have mechanisms of action and physical properties that make them amenable for use as potential warfare agents. Currently, some toxins are classified as potential biological weapons, although they have several differences from classic living bio-terror pathogens and some similarities to manmade chemical warfare agents. This review focuses on category A and B bio-terror toxins recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Botulinum neurotoxin, staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Clostridium perfringens epsilon toxin, and ricin. Their derivation, pathogenesis, mechanism of action, associated clinical signs and symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment are discussed in detail. Given their expected covert use, the primary diagnostic challenge in toxin exposure is the early detection of morbidity clusters, apart from background morbidity, after a relatively short incubation period. For this reason, it is important that clinicians be familiar with the clinical manifestations of toxins and the appropriate methods of management and countermeasures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 19%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Chemistry 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 28 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,667,173
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Disaster and Military Medicine
#8
of 23 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,151
of 299,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disaster and Military Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one scored the same or higher as 15 of them.
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 299,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.