↓ Skip to main content

Exploration of spatial patterns of congenital anomalies in Los Angeles County using the vital statistics birth master file

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Exploration of spatial patterns of congenital anomalies in Los Angeles County using the vital statistics birth master file
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10661-018-6539-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Radhika Rible, Efren Aguilar, Angela Chen, Joshua L. Bader, Leslie Goodyear-Moya, Karen Teekadai Singh, Suzanne E. Paulson, Julie Friedman, Nilufar Izadpanah, Janet Pregler

Abstract

Research has shown linkages between environmental exposures and population health metrics such as low birth weight and incidence of congenital anomalies. While the exact causal relationship between specific environmental teratogens and suspected corresponding congenital anomalies has largely not been established, spatial analysis of anomaly incidence can identify potential locations of increased risk. This study uses the Vital Statistics Birth Master File to map and analyze the rates of congenital anomalies of births from non-smoking mothers 15-35 years old within Los Angeles County. Hot spot analysis shows that the distribution of congenital anomalies is not randomly distributed throughout the county and identified the Antelope Valley and San Gabriel Foothills as two areas with elevated incidence rates. These results are not explained by potential confounders such as maternal age, race, smoking status, or socioeconomic status and seem to correlate well with the concentration of atmospheric ozone. This approach demonstrates the value of using spatial techniques to inform future research efforts and the need to establish and maintain a comprehensive reproductive health surveillance system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 19 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,320,315
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#492
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,037
of 334,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#8
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 334,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.