↓ Skip to main content

UK Food Standards Agency Workshop Report: the effects of the dietary n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio on cardiovascular health

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Nutrition, December 2007
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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users
patent
5 patents
reddit
3 Redditors
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
UK Food Standards Agency Workshop Report: the effects of the dietary n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio on cardiovascular health
Published in
British Journal of Nutrition, December 2007
DOI 10.1017/s000711450784284x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This report summarises a workshop convened by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) on 11 September 2006 to review the results of three FSA-funded studies and other recent research on effects of the dietary n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio on cardiovascular health. The objective of this workshop was to reach a clear conclusion on whether or not it was worth funding any further research in this area. On the basis of this review of the experimental evidence and on theoretical grounds, it was concluded that the n-6:n-3 fatty acid ratio is not a useful concept and that it distracts attention away from increasing absolute intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids which have been shown to have beneficial effects on cardiovascular health. Other markers of fatty acid intake, that more closely relate to physiological function, may be more useful.

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 8 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 22 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 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 September 2026.
All research outputs
#2,281,508
of 34,447,360 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Nutrition
#1,237
of 7,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,752
of 226,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Nutrition
#9
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,447,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 226,472 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.