↓ Skip to main content

Leg length and type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Leg length and type 2 diabetes
Published in
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1097/mco.0000000000000211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noel T. Mueller, Mark A. Pereira

Abstract

Human leg length is determined by a complex interplay of genetics and environmental exposures during development, which may be associated with long-term metabolic disease risk. Here, we review recent literature on the link between relative leg length and type 2 diabetes in more and less economically developed societies, wherein the contextual influences on relative leg length are unique. We also hypothesize mechanisms underlying and mediating this association. Evidence from more economically prosperous Western populations and contemporary adult populations in China and Brazil indicates that lower relative leg length is associated with greater risk for impaired glucose homeostasis and type 2 diabetes. In Brazil, this association was stronger among women with early menarche. Although still poorly defined and in need of further research, the potential mechanisms likely involve suboptimal early-life net nutrition that simultaneously leads to retarded growth and impaired glucose regulation. An untested hypothesis is that the association is mediated by differences in skeletal muscle mass. Epidemiologic evidence from diverse settings points to humans with shorter legs relative to their stature having higher risk for type 2 diabetes. Although research is needed to test mechanistic hypotheses, the greatest potential for improving public health will come through identification of, and intervention upon, the upstream modifiable determinants of inadequate leg growth.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 24%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%
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 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
#1,113
of 1,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,783
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 276,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.