| Title |
Effects of isoflavones on breast tissue and the thyroid hormone system in humans: a comprehensive safety evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Toxicology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00204-018-2279-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Hüser, S. Guth, H. G. Joost, S. T. Soukup, J. Köhrle, L. Kreienbrock, P. Diel, D. W. Lachenmeier, G. Eisenbrand, G. Vollmer, U. Nöthlings, D. Marko, A. Mally, T. Grune, L. Lehmann, P. Steinberg, S. E. Kulling |
| Abstract |
Isoflavones are secondary plant constituents of certain foods and feeds such as soy, linseeds, and red clover. Furthermore, isoflavone-containing preparations are marketed as food supplements and so-called dietary food for special medical purposes to alleviate health complaints of peri- and postmenopausal women. Based on the bioactivity of isoflavones, especially their hormonal properties, there is an ongoing discussion regarding their potential adverse effects on human health. This review evaluates and summarises the evidence from interventional and observational studies addressing potential unintended effects of isoflavones on the female breast in healthy women as well as in breast cancer patients and on the thyroid hormone system. In addition, evidence from animal and in vitro studies considered relevant in this context was taken into account along with their strengths and limitations. Key factors influencing the biological effects of isoflavones, e.g., bioavailability, plasma and tissue concentrations, metabolism, temporality (pre- vs. postmenopausal women), and duration of isoflavone exposure, were also addressed. Final conclusions on the safety of isoflavones are guided by the aim of precautionary consumer protection. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 190 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 6% |
| Researcher | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 70 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 85 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,824,120
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#477
of 2,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,671
of 340,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#6
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. 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 340,145 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.