↓ Skip to main content

Artificial Food Colors and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Symptoms: Conclusions to Dye for

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,316)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
45 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
80 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
711 Mendeley
Title
Artificial Food Colors and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Symptoms: Conclusions to Dye for
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13311-012-0133-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Eugene Arnold, Nicholas Lofthouse, Elizabeth Hurt

Abstract

The effect of artificial food colors (AFCs) on child behavior has been studied for more than 35 years, with accumulating evidence from imperfect studies. This article summarizes the history of this controversial topic and testimony to the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Food Advisory Committee convened to evaluate the current status of evidence regarding attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Features of ADHD relevant to understanding the AFC literature are explained: ADHD is a quantitative diagnosis, like hypertension, and some individuals near the threshold may be pushed over it by a small symptom increment. The chronicity and pervasiveness make caregiver ratings the most valid measure, albeit subjective. Flaws in many studies include nonstandardized diagnosis, questionable sample selection, imperfect blinding, and nonstandardized outcome measures. Recent data suggest a small but significant deleterious effect of AFCs on children's behavior that is not confined to those with diagnosable ADHD. AFCs appear to be more of a public health problem than an ADHD problem. AFCs are not a major cause of ADHD per se, but seem to affect children regardless of whether or not they have ADHD, and they may have an aggregated effect on classroom climate if most children in the class suffer a small behavioral decrement with additive or synergistic effects. Possible biological mechanisms with published evidence include the effects on nutrient levels, genetic vulnerability, and changes in electroencephalographic beta-band power. A table clarifying the Food and Drug Administration and international naming systems for AFCs, with cross-referencing, is provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 711 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Lebanon 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 706 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 196 28%
Student > Master 53 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 7%
Researcher 29 4%
Other 23 3%
Other 50 7%
Unknown 313 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 78 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 73 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 7%
Chemistry 34 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 4%
Other 100 14%
Unknown 353 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 447. 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 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#63,081
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#7
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222
of 177,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 1,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. 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 177,282 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 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.