↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 17 18%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Chemistry 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 33 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,369,397
of 25,189,292 outputs
Outputs from Disaster and Military Medicine
#7
of 24 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,011
of 305,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disaster and Military Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,189,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one scored the same or higher as 17 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 305,475 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 82% 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.