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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of Hydrolyzed Infant Formula vs Conventional Formula on Risk of Type 1 Diabetes: The TRIGR Randomized Clinical Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2017.19826 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mikael Knip, Hans K. Åkerblom, Eva Al Taji, Dorothy Becker, Jan Bruining, Luis Castano, Thomas Danne, Carine de Beaufort, Hans-Michael Dosch, John Dupre, William D. Fraser, Neville Howard, Jorma Ilonen, Daniel Konrad, Olga Kordonouri, Jeffrey P. Krischer, Margaret L. Lawson, Johnny Ludvigsson, Laszlo Madacsy, Jeffrey L. Mahon, Anne Ormisson, Jerry P. Palmer, Paolo Pozzilli, Erkki Savilahti, Manuel Serrano-Rios, Marco Songini, Shayne Taback, Outi Vaarala, Neil H. White, Suvi M. Virtanen, Renata Wasikowa |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 152 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 | 33 | 22% |
| Spain | 15 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 8% |
| Finland | 10 | 7% |
| Canada | 5 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 2 | 1% |
| El Salvador | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Unknown | 57 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 94 | 62% |
| Scientists | 29 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 26 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 260 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 10% |
| Other | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 8% |
| Researcher | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 55 | 21% |
| Unknown | 85 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 10% |
| Unknown | 96 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1293. 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 27 September 2021.
All research outputs
#10,415
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#276
of 36,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161
of 454,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#7
of 405 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 36,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.7. 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 454,378 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 405 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.