| Title |
Stunted microbiota and opportunistic pathogen colonization in caesarean-section birth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, September 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41586-019-1560-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan Shao, Samuel C. Forster, Evdokia Tsaliki, Kevin Vervier, Angela Strang, Nandi Simpson, Nitin Kumar, Mark D. Stares, Alison Rodger, Peter Brocklehurst, Nigel Field, Trevor D. Lawley |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 848 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 States | 116 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 69 | 8% |
| Australia | 44 | 5% |
| Spain | 39 | 5% |
| Japan | 26 | 3% |
| Canada | 20 | 2% |
| France | 19 | 2% |
| India | 14 | 2% |
| Italy | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 132 | 16% |
| Unknown | 356 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 524 | 62% |
| Scientists | 266 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 50 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,067 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1067 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 169 | 16% |
| Researcher | 140 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 139 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 98 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 46 | 4% |
| Other | 131 | 12% |
| Unknown | 344 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 166 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 132 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 105 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 102 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 4% |
| Other | 131 | 12% |
| Unknown | 386 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1921. 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 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#5,086
of 25,891,484 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#543
of 99,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78
of 355,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#14
of 977 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,891,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 99,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 355,697 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 977 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.