↓ Skip to main content

A framework for assessing the risk of resistance for anti-malarials in development

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
A framework for assessing the risk of resistance for anti-malarials in development
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-11-292
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier C Ding, David Ubben, Timothy NC Wells

Abstract

Resistance is a constant challenge for anti-infective drug development. Since they kill sensitive organisms, anti-infective agents are bound to exert an evolutionary pressure toward the emergence and spread of resistance mechanisms, if such resistance can arise by stochastic mutation events. New classes of medicines under development must be designed or selected to stay ahead in this vicious circle of resistance control. This involves both circumventing existing resistance mechanisms and selecting molecules which are resilient against the development and spread of resistance. Cell-based screening methods have led to a renaissance of new classes of anti-malarial medicines, offering us the potential to select and modify molecules based on their resistance potential. To that end, a standardized in vitro methodology to assess quantitatively these characteristics in Plasmodium falciparum during the early phases of the drug development process has been developed and is presented here. It allows the identification of anti-malarial compounds with overt resistance risks and the prioritization of the most robust ones. The integration of this strategy in later stages of development, registration, and deployment is also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Other 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 13%
Chemistry 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 23 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,995,001
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#378
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,383
of 172,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#2
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 172,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 98% of its contemporaries.