↓ Skip to main content

Association of Plasma Phospholipid n-3 and n-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids with Type 2 Diabetes: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Association of Plasma Phospholipid n-3 and n-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids with Type 2 Diabetes: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study
Published in
PLOS Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nita G. Forouhi, Fumiaki Imamura, Stephen J. Sharp, Albert Koulman, Matthias B. Schulze, Jusheng Zheng, Zheng Ye, Ivonne Sluijs, Marcela Guevara, José María Huerta, Janine Kröger, Laura Yun Wang, Keith Summerhill, Julian L. Griffin, Edith J. M. Feskens, Aurélie Affret, Pilar Amiano, Heiner Boeing, Courtney Dow, Guy Fagherazzi, Paul W. Franks, Carlos Gonzalez, Rudolf Kaaks, Timothy J. Key, Kay Tee Khaw, Tilman Kühn, Lotte Maxild Mortensen, Peter M. Nilsson, Kim Overvad, Valeria Pala, Domenico Palli, Salvatore Panico, J. Ramón Quirós, Miguel Rodriguez-Barranco, Olov Rolandsson, Carlotta Sacerdote, Augustin Scalbert, Nadia Slimani, Annemieke M. W. Spijkerman, Anne Tjonneland, Maria-Jose Tormo, Rosario Tumino, Daphne L. van der A, Yvonne T. van der Schouw, Claudia Langenberg, Elio Riboli, Nicholas J. Wareham

Abstract

Whether and how n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are related to type 2 diabetes (T2D) is debated. Objectively measured plasma PUFAs can help to clarify these associations. Plasma phospholipid PUFAs were measured by gas chromatography among 12,132 incident T2D cases and 15,919 subcohort participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-InterAct study across eight European countries. Country-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Prentice-weighted Cox regression and pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. We also systematically reviewed published prospective studies on circulating PUFAs and T2D risk and pooled the quantitative evidence for comparison with results from EPIC-InterAct. In EPIC-InterAct, among long-chain n-3 PUFAs, α-linolenic acid (ALA) was inversely associated with T2D (HR per standard deviation [SD] 0.93; 95% CI 0.88-0.98), but eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were not significantly associated. Among n-6 PUFAs, linoleic acid (LA) (0.80; 95% CI 0.77-0.83) and eicosadienoic acid (EDA) (0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) were inversely related, and arachidonic acid (AA) was not significantly associated, while significant positive associations were observed with γ-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-GLA, docosatetraenoic acid (DTA), and docosapentaenoic acid (n6-DPA), with HRs between 1.13 to 1.46 per SD. These findings from EPIC-InterAct were broadly similar to comparative findings from summary estimates from up to nine studies including between 71 to 2,499 T2D cases. Limitations included potential residual confounding and the inability to distinguish between dietary and metabolic influences on plasma phospholipid PUFAs. These large-scale findings suggest an important inverse association of circulating plant-origin n-3 PUFA (ALA) but no convincing association of marine-derived n3 PUFAs (EPA and DHA) with T2D. Moreover, they highlight that the most abundant n6-PUFA (LA) is inversely associated with T2D. The detection of associations with previously less well-investigated PUFAs points to the importance of considering individual fatty acids rather than focusing on fatty acid class.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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
#632,201
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#1,026
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,714
of 377,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#38
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 377,270 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.