↓ Skip to main content
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
55 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.
Article details
Title
Stratified Probabilistic Bias Analysis for Body Mass Index–related Exposure Misclassification in Postmenopausal Women
Published in
Epidemiology, September 2018
DOI 10.1097/ede.0000000000000863
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is widespread concern about the use of body mass index (BMI) to define obesity status in postmenopausal women because it may not accurately represent an individual's true obesity status. The objective of the present study is to examine and adjust for exposure misclassification bias from using an indirect measure of obesity (BMI) compared with a direct measure of obesity (percent body fat). We used data from postmenopausal non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI; n=126,459). Within the WHI, a sample of 11,018 women were invited to participate in a sub-study involving dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. We examined indices of validity comparing BMI-defined obesity (≥30kg/m) with obesity defined by percent body fat. We then used probabilistic bias analysis models stratified by age and race to explore the effect of exposure misclassification on the obesity-mortality relationship. Validation analyses highlight that using a BMI cutpoint of 30 kg/m to define obesity in postmenopausal women is associated with poor validity. There were notable differences in sensitivity by age and race. Results from the stratified bias analysis demonstrated that failing to adjust for exposure misclassification bias results in attenuated estimates of the obesity-mortality relationship. For example, in non-Hispanic white women age 50-59, the conventional risk difference was 0.017 (95% CI 0.01, 0.023) and the bias-adjusted risk difference was 0.035 (95% SI 0.028, 0.043). These results demonstrate the importance of using quantitative bias analysis techniques to account for non-differential exposure misclassification of BMI-defined obesity.

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 16 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 55 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 %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,491,263
of 34,178,444 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology
#1,050
of 3,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,745
of 376,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,178,444 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 376,483 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.