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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS Medicine, March 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlotte Debras, Eloi Chazelas, Bernard Srour, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo, Younes Esseddik, Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, Cédric Agaësse, Alexandre De Sa, Rebecca Lutchia, Stéphane Gigandet, Inge Huybrechts, Chantal Julia, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès, Valentina A. Andreeva, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Mélanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Mathilde Touvier |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,571 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 118 | 8% |
| Thailand | 85 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 61 | 4% |
| Mexico | 56 | 4% |
| Japan | 34 | 2% |
| France | 33 | 2% |
| India | 28 | 2% |
| Spain | 26 | 2% |
| Australia | 16 | 1% |
| Other | 200 | 13% |
| Unknown | 914 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1342 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 105 | 7% |
| Scientists | 104 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 18 | 1% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 306 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 39 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Researcher | 25 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 17% |
| Unknown | 121 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 40 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 13% |
| Unknown | 128 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4880. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#816
of 24,547,718 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#4
of 4,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39
of 432,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#1
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,547,718 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 4,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.7. 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 432,678 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 137 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 99% of its contemporaries.