↓ Skip to main content

Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Review of Epidemiologic and Experimental Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition and Cancer, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 2,054)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
344 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
475 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Review of Epidemiologic and Experimental Evidence
Published in
Nutrition and Cancer, March 2008
DOI 10.1080/01635580701684872
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphaëlle L. Santarelli, Fabrice Pierre, Denis E. Corpet

Abstract

Processed meat intake may be involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. The epidemiologic studies published to date conclude that the excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20% and 50% compared with non-eaters. In addition, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly higher than that of fresh red meat. Several hypotheses, which are mainly based on studies carried out on red meat, may explain why processed meat intake is linked to cancer risk. Those that have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat diets could promote carcinogenesis via insulin resistance or fecal bile acids; (ii) that cooking meat at a high temperature forms carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; (iii) that carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are formed in meat and endogenously; (iv) that heme iron in red meat can promote carcinogenesis because it increases cell proliferation in the mucosa, through lipoperoxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water. Nitrosation might increase the toxicity of heme in cured products. Solving this puzzle is a challenge that would permit to reduce cancer load by changing the processes rather than by banning processed meat.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 475 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 470 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 84 18%
Student > Master 74 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 11%
Researcher 45 9%
Other 25 5%
Other 70 15%
Unknown 125 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 8%
Chemistry 20 4%
Other 59 12%
Unknown 144 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 497. 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 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#54,346
of 26,104,555 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition and Cancer
#6
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64
of 97,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition and Cancer
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,104,555 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 97,210 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them