↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Applying Recovery Biomarkers to Calibrate Self-Report Measures of Energy and Protein in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos
Published in
American Journal of Epidemiology, May 2015
DOI 10.1093/aje/kwu468
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We investigated measurement error in the self-reported diets of US Hispanics/Latinos, who are prone to obesity and related comorbidities, by background (Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South American) in 2010-2012. In 477 participants aged 18-74 years, doubly labeled water and urinary nitrogen were used as objective recovery biomarkers of energy and protein intakes. Self-report was captured from two 24-hour dietary recalls. All measures were repeated in a subsample of 98 individuals. We examined the bias of dietary recalls and their associations with participant characteristics using generalized estimating equations. Energy intake was underestimated by 25.3% (men, 21.8%; women, 27.3%), and protein intake was underestimated by 18.5% (men, 14.7%; women, 20.7%). Protein density was overestimated by 10.7% (men, 11.3%; women, 10.1%). Higher body mass index and Hispanic/Latino background were associated with underestimation of energy (P < 0.05). For protein intake, higher body mass index, older age, nonsmoking, Spanish speaking, and Hispanic/Latino background were associated with underestimation (P < 0.05). Systematic underreporting of energy and protein intakes and overreporting of protein density were found to vary significantly by Hispanic/Latino background. We developed calibration equations that correct for subject-specific error in reporting that can be used to reduce bias in diet-disease association studies.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 31 41%
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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#9,295,125
of 34,421,733 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Epidemiology
#5,513
of 10,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,775
of 307,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Epidemiology
#27
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,421,733 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 307,439 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 60% of its contemporaries.