↓ Skip to main content

Encephalitic Arboviruses: Emergence, Clinical Presentation, and Neuropathogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, June 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
Encephalitic Arboviruses: Emergence, Clinical Presentation, and Neuropathogenesis
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13311-016-0443-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamid Salimi, Matthew D Cain, Robyn S Klein

Abstract

Arboviruses are arthropod-borne viruses that exhibit worldwide distribution, contributing to systemic and neurologic infections in a variety of geographical locations. Arboviruses are transmitted to vertebral hosts during blood feedings by mosquitoes, ticks, biting flies, mites, and nits. While the majority of arboviral infections do not lead to neuroinvasive forms of disease, they are among the most severe infectious risks to the health of the human central nervous system. The neurologic diseases caused by arboviruses include meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis, encephalomyelitis, neuritis, and myositis in which virus- and immune-mediated injury may lead to severe, persisting neurologic deficits or death. Here we will review the major families of emerging arboviruses that cause neurologic infections, their neuropathogenesis and host neuroimmunologic responses, and current strategies for treatment and prevention of neurologic infections they cause.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 18%
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 19 11%
Other 11 7%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 23 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 44 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,262,263
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#89
of 1,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,986
of 353,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 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 1,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 353,887 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.