↓ Skip to main content

Rationale and study design of the Japan environment and children’s study (JECS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
594 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
Rationale and study design of the Japan environment and children’s study (JECS)
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toshihiro Kawamoto, Hiroshi Nitta, Katsuyuki Murata, Eisaku Toda, Naoya Tsukamoto, Manabu Hasegawa, Zentaro Yamagata, Fujio Kayama, Reiko Kishi, Yukihiro Ohya, Hirohisa Saito, Haruhiko Sago, Makiko Okuyama, Tsutomu Ogata, Susumu Yokoya, Yuji Koresawa, Yasuyuki Shibata, Shoji Nakayama, Takehiro Michikawa, Ayano Takeuchi, Hiroshi Satoh, Working Group of the Epidemiological Research for Children’s Environmental Health

Abstract

There is global concern over significant threats from a wide variety of environmental hazards to which children face. Large-scale and long-term birth cohort studies are needed for better environmental management based on sound science. The primary objective of the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), a nation-wide birth cohort study that started its recruitment in January 2011, is to elucidate environmental factors that affect children's health and development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 193 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 57 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Unspecified 8 4%
Environmental Science 8 4%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 70 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#6,014,413
of 24,679,965 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,029
of 16,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,000
of 316,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#98
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,679,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 316,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.