Title |
Automated detection of Mycobacterial growth on 96-well plates for rapid and accurate Tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing
|
---|---|
Published in |
bioRxiv, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1101/229427 |
Authors |
Philip W Fowler, Ana L Gilbertoni Cruz, Sarah J Hoosdally, Lisa Jarrett, Emanuele Borroni, Matteo Chiacchiaretta, Priti Rathod, Timothy M Walker, Esther Robinson, Timothy EA Peto, Daniela M. Cirillo, E Grace Smith, Derrick W Crook, Ana Luiza Gibertoni Cruz, Daniela Maria M. Cirillo, Ana Luíza Gibertoni Cruz, Daniela Maria Cirillo |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 8 | 19% |
United States | 5 | 12% |
Spain | 2 | 5% |
India | 2 | 5% |
Germany | 2 | 5% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Malawi | 1 | 2% |
Denmark | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 20 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 47% |
Scientists | 19 | 44% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 36% |
Researcher | 2 | 18% |
Other | 1 | 9% |
Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 9% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 27% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 27% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 9% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 9% |
Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 9% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,457,865
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from bioRxiv
#20,484
of 190,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,854
of 442,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from bioRxiv
#244
of 2,644 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 190,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. 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 442,527 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 2,644 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 90% of its contemporaries.