↓ Skip to main content

Calculating meal glycemic index by using measured and published food values compared with directly measured meal glycemic index

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2011
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 (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors
video
1 YouTube creator
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Calculating meal glycemic index by using measured and published food values compared with directly measured meal glycemic index
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2011
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.111.012138
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Glycemic index (GI) testing is normally based on individual foods, whereas GIs for meals or diets are based on a formula using a weighted sum of the constituents. The accuracy with which the formula can predict a meal or diet GI is questionable.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 216 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 64 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 7%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 74 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 08 August 2026.
All research outputs
#1,269,061
of 34,636,286 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#2,395
of 15,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,611
of 169,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#22
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,636,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 169,510 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.