↓ Skip to main content

Unhealthy diets: a common soil for the association of metabolic syndrome and cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Endocrine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Unhealthy diets: a common soil for the association of metabolic syndrome and cancer
Published in
Endocrine, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12020-013-0151-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Esposito, Fortunato Ciardiello, Dario Giugliano

Abstract

The association between metabolic syndrome and cancer continues to be acknowledged. Metabolic syndrome is a common long-term complication in cancer survivors; on the other hand, findings from several recent meta-analyses suggest that the presence of metabolic syndrome is associated with increased risk of future cancer at specific sites. Approximately one-third of cancer deaths occurring in the USA each year may be caused by unhealthy lifestyle habits, including poor nutrition. Worldwide, diets low in fruits rank third for deaths attributable to individual risk factors. Metabolic syndrome may be a surrogate marker for dietary risk factors for cancer, a sentinel for the deleterious effect of unhealthy diet in susceptible individuals, who may first manifest metabolic consequences (visceral obesity, dysglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia), and then an increased risk of cancer. From the standpoint of preventive oncology, people with the metabolic syndrome should be encouraged, more than sex- and age-matched counterparts, to undergo appropriate cancer screenings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Lecturer 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 18%
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 31 January 2014.
All research outputs
#13,325,843
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Endocrine
#759
of 1,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,834
of 304,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Endocrine
#14
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 304,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.