↓ Skip to main content

The Obesity Paradox in Cancer: a Review

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 1,004)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
411 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 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.
Title
The Obesity Paradox in Cancer: a Review
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11912-016-0539-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Lennon, Matthew Sperrin, Ellena Badrick, Andrew G. Renehan

Abstract

There is a common perception that excess adiposity, commonly approximated by body mass index (BMI), is associated with reduced cancer survival. A number of studies have emerged challenging this by demonstrating that overweight and early obese states are associated with improved survival. This finding is termed the "obesity paradox" and is well recognized in the cardio-metabolic literature but less so in oncology. Here, we summarize the epidemiological findings related to the obesity paradox in cancer. Our review highlights that many observations of the obesity paradox in cancer reflect methodological mechanisms including the crudeness of BMI as an obesity measure, confounding, detection bias, reverse causality, and a specific form of the selection bias, known as collider bias. It is imperative for the oncologist to interpret the observation of the obesity paradox against the above methodological framework and avoid the misinterpretation that being obese might be "good" or "protective" for cancer patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 331 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 13%
Student > Master 36 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 8%
Other 66 20%
Unknown 98 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 4%
Sports and Recreations 6 2%
Other 39 12%
Unknown 122 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 24 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,307,840
of 25,800,372 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#19
of 1,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,405
of 382,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,800,372 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 382,195 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.