↓ Skip to main content

Haem iron intake and risk of lung cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Haem iron intake and risk of lung cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41430-018-0271-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather A. Ward, Julia Whitman, David C. Muller, Mattias Johansson, Paula Jakszyn, Elisabete Weiderpass, Domenico Palli, Anouar Fanidi, Roel Vermeulen, Anne Tjønneland, Louise Hansen, Christina C. Dahm, Kim Overvad, Gianluca Severi, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Aurélie Affret, Rudolf Kaaks, Renee Fortner, Heiner Boeing, Antonia Trichopoulou, Carlo La Vecchia, Anastasia Kotanidou, Franco Berrino, Vittorio Krogh, Rosario Tumino, Fulvio Ricceri, Salvatore Panico, H. Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, Petra H. Peeters, Therese Haugdahl Nøst, Torkjel M. Sandanger, Jose Ramón Quirós, Antonio Agudo, Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco, Nerea Larrañaga, Jose Maria Huerta, Eva Ardanaz, Isabel Drake, Hans Brunnström, Mikael Johansson, Kjell Grankvist, Ruth C. Travis, Heinz Freisling, Magdalena Stepien, Melissa A. Merritt, Elio Riboli, Amanda J. Cross

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,911,823
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#739
of 4,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,245
of 356,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#18
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. 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 356,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.