↓ Skip to main content

Good Fish/Bad Fish: A Composite Benefit–Risk by Dose Curve

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroToxicology, August 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Good Fish/Bad Fish: A Composite Benefit–Risk by Dose Curve
Published in
NeuroToxicology, August 2005
DOI 10.1016/j.neuro.2004.12.010
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Balancing risks and benefits of fish consumption is now a high visibility public health topic. Many studies identify health benefits of eating fish, both for prenatal development and adult cardiovascular conditions, partly attributed to omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs). Many reports raise concerns about methylmercury and polychlorinated biphenyl effects on the developing fetal brain (although adults, too, can manifest methylmercury effects). Most reports and advisories focus on recreational or subsistence fish, but the vast majority of people obtain most or all of their fish from commercial sources. Our analysis of the nine most common fish in New Jersey markets, yielded a weighted average methylmercury concentration of 0.23 ug/g (ppm wet weight). There are great disparities in the amount and distribution of both PUFAs and contaminants) in different fish species. Recognizing that both benefits and harm must be related to dose, we propose a compound dose-response curve, currently based on limited data, to identify a zone of benefit, above the benefit threshold and below the harm threshold. The duration of pregnancy and birth weight improve at a benefit threshold of about 8-15 g/day maternal fish intake. Meta-analyses reveal adult cardiovascular benefits around 7.5-22.5 g/day bracket (assuming an 8 ounce/227 g typical meal), yielding a midpoint also at 15 g/day, but this is an artifact of the intake stratification. Benefit asymptotes are harder to extract, but are above 45 g/day, and in some studies exceed 100g/day. Using the EPA Reference Dose of 0.1 ug/kg day as a methylmercury threshold, The fish intake threshold for harm converts to 27 g/day (for a selection of common commercial fish averaging 0.23 ppm MeHg) to 65 g/day for someone choosing fish low in MeHg (0.1 ppm). However, these are worst case thresholds since the RfD includes uncertainty factors. Some people eat much more than 65 g/day. The shape of the dose-benefit and dose-harm curves require better data for estimating thresholds and asymptotes, which will impact the composite curve. We propose this approach clarifies the kinds of data needed to improve risk communication on "what should I eat". Benefits from fish consumption are confounded by socioeconomic class and/or by the avoidance of more harmful foods that fish replaces, which may be as important a benefit mechanism as the PUFA content. Additional studies with better dose-reconstruction are needed and large scale intervention studies are desirable.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 3 3%
Belgium 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 98 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 13%
Environmental Science 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,086,245
of 27,776,330 outputs
Outputs from NeuroToxicology
#407
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,716
of 76,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroToxicology
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,776,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 76,405 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.