↓ 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 (#8 of 9,614)
  • 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
68 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
824 tweeters
facebook
76 Facebook pages
googleplus
9 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
113 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 824 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
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 101 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Psychology 8 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 21 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1355. 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 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#964
of 8,642,431 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#8
of 9,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11
of 127,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#1
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,642,431 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 9,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. 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 127,937 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 54 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.