↓ Skip to main content

Relation of Body Fat Categories by Gallagher Classification and by Continuous Variables to Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Relation of Body Fat Categories by Gallagher Classification and by Continuous Variables to Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease
Published in
American Journal of Cardiology, December 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.11.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alban De Schutter, Carl J. Lavie, Dharmendrakumar A. Patel, Surya M. Artham, Richard V. Milani

Abstract

Although obesity is a coronary heart disease risk factor, in cohorts of patients with coronary heart disease, an "obesity paradox" exists whereby patients with obesity have a better prognosis than do leaner patients. Obesity is generally defined by body mass index, with relatively little described regarding body fat (BF). In this study, 581 consecutive patients with coronary heart disease divided into the Gallagher BF categories of underweight (n = 12), normal (n = 189), overweight (n = 214), and obese (n = 166) were evaluated, and 3-year mortality was assessed using the National Death Index. Mortality was U shaped, being highest in the underweight group (25%, p <0.0001 vs all groups) and lowest in the overweight group (2.3%), with intermediate mortality in the normal-BF (6.4%, p = 0.02 vs overweight) and obese (3.6%) groups. In multiple regression analysis, high BF (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.95) and higher Gallagher class (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.84) were independent predictors of lower mortality. In conclusion, on the basis of Gallagher BF, an obesity paradox exists, with the highest mortality in the underweight and normal-BF groups and the lowest mortality in the overweight group. Lower BF as a continuous variable and by Gallagher classification as a categorical value were independent predictors of higher mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Lecturer 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#8,760
of 10,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,575
of 288,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#84
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 288,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.