↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of lung cancer incidence in the nurses’ health and the health professionals’ follow-up studies using a multistage carcinogenesis model

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Causes & Control, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Analysis of lung cancer incidence in the nurses’ health and the health professionals’ follow-up studies using a multistage carcinogenesis model
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control, December 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10552-007-9094-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael Meza, William D. Hazelton, Graham A. Colditz, Suresh H. Moolgavkar

Abstract

We analyzed lung cancer incidence among non-smokers, continuing smokers, and ex-smokers in the Nurses Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) using the two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model. Age-specific lung cancer incidence rates among non-smokers are identical in the two cohorts. Within the framework of the model, the main effect of cigarette smoke is on the promotion of partially altered cells on the pathway to cancer. Smoking-related promotion is somewhat higher among women, whereas smoking-related malignant conversion is somewhat lower. In both cohorts the relative risk for a given daily level of smoking is strongly modified by duration. Among smokers, the incidence in NHS relative to that in HPFS depends both on smoking intensity and duration. The age-adjusted risk is somewhat larger in NHS, but not significantly so. After smokers quit, the risk decreases over a period of many years and the temporal pattern of the decline is similar to that reported in other recent studies. Among ex-smokers, the incidence in NHS relative to that in HPFS depends both on previous levels of smoking and on time since quitting. The age-adjusted risk among ex-smokers is somewhat higher in NHS, possibly due to differences in the age-distribution between the two cohorts.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Professor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Mathematics 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,916,538
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#950
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,711
of 160,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 160,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.