↓ Skip to main content

History of Mosquitoborne Diseases in the United States and Implications for New Pathogens - Volume 24, Number 5—May 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
35 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
History of Mosquitoborne Diseases in the United States and Implications for New Pathogens - Volume 24, Number 5—May 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Professor 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 31 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,059,420
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,201
of 9,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,275
of 330,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#18
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 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 9,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 330,173 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 117 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.