↓ Skip to main content

History of Mosquitoborne Diseases in the United States and Implications for New Pathogens

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
History of Mosquitoborne Diseases in the United States and Implications for New Pathogens
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2018
DOI 10.3201/eid2405.171609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Max J. Moreno-Madriñán, Michael Turell

Abstract

The introduction and spread of West Nile virus and the recent introduction of chikungunya and Zika viruses into the Americas have raised concern about the potential for various tropical pathogens to become established in North America. A historical analysis of yellow fever and malaria incidences in the United States suggests that it is not merely a temperate climate that keeps these pathogens from becoming established. Instead, socioeconomic changes are the most likely explanation for why these pathogens essentially disappeared from the United States yet remain a problem in tropical areas. In contrast to these anthroponotic pathogens that require humans in their transmission cycle, zoonotic pathogens are only slightly affected by socioeconomic factors, which is why West Nile virus became established in North America. In light of increasing globalization, we need to be concerned about the introduction of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever, Japanese encephalitis, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis viruses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 25%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 6 9%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 14%
Environmental Science 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 16 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 11 June 2020.
All research outputs
#705,601
of 15,963,587 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#834
of 7,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,832
of 281,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#16
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,963,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 281,080 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.