↓ Skip to main content

Age of onset of obesity and risk of type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Age of onset of obesity and risk of type 2 diabetes
Published in
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/1753-6405.12593
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie K Tanamas, Evelyn Wong, Kathryn Backholer, Asnawi Abdullah, Rory Wolfe, Jan Barendregt, Anna Peeters

Abstract

To compare a simple measure - age of onset of obesity - to an obese-years construct (a product of duration and magnitude of obesity) as risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Participants from the Framingham Heart Study who were not obese and did not have diabetes at baseline were included (n=4,320). The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was computed to compare four Cox proportional hazards models with incident diabetes as the outcome and: (i) obese-years; (ii) age of onset of obesity; (iii) body mass index (BMI); and (iv) age of onset of obesity plus magnitude of BMI combined, as exposures. AIC indicated that the model with obese-years provided a more effective explanation of incidence of type 2 diabetes compared to the remaining three models. Models including age of onset of obesity plus BMI were not appreciably different from the model with BMI alone, except in those aged ≥60. While obese-years was the optimal obesity construct to explain risk of type 2 diabetes, age of onset may be a useful, practical addition to current BMI in the elderly. Where computation of obese-years is not possible or impractical, age of onset of obesity combined with BMI may provide a useful alternative.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 14 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#1,655
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,581
of 322,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.