↓ Skip to main content

Prospective Study of Breakfast Eating and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in a Cohort of Male US Health Professionals.

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, January 2013
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 (#7 of 8,813)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
67 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
815 tweeters
facebook
75 Facebook pages
googleplus
9 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Prospective Study of Breakfast Eating and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in a Cohort of Male US Health Professionals.
Published in
Circulation, January 2013
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.113.001474
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leah E. Cahill, Stephanie E. Chiuve, Rania A. Mekary, Majken K. Jensen, Alan J. Flint, Frank B. Hu, Eric B. Rimm, Cahill LE, Chiuve SE, Mekary RA, Jensen MK, Flint AJ, Hu FB, Rimm EB, Leah E Cahill, Stephanie E Chiuve, Rania A Mekary, Majken K Jensen, Alan J Flint, Frank B Hu, Eric B Rimm, L. E. Cahill, S. E. Chiuve, R. A. Mekary, M. K. Jensen, A. J. Flint, F. B. Hu, E. B. Rimm

Abstract

Among adults, skipping meals is associated with excess body weight, hypertension, insulin resistance, and elevated fasting lipid concentrations. However, it remains unknown whether specific eating habits regardless of dietary composition influence coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. The objective of this study was to prospectively examine eating habits and risk of CHD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 815 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 89 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 15 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Other 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Other 14 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1315. 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 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#836
of 7,944,325 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#7
of 8,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11
of 126,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,944,325 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 8,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. 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 126,665 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 53 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 98% of its contemporaries.