↓ Skip to main content

Erratum: Large meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies five loci for lean body mass

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Erratum: Large meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies five loci for lean body mass
Published in
Nature Communications, November 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-01008-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Carola Zillikens, Serkalem Demissie, Yi-Hsiang Hsu, Laura M. Yerges-Armstrong, Wen-Chi Chou, Lisette Stolk, Gregory Livshits, Linda Broer, Toby Johnson, Daniel L. Koller, Zoltán Kutalik, Jian’an Luan, Ida Malkin, Janina S. Ried, Albert V. Smith, Gudmar Thorleifsson, Liesbeth Vandenput, Jing Hua Zhao, Weihua Zhang, Ali Aghdassi, Kristina Åkesson, Najaf Amin, Leslie J. Baier, Inês Barroso, David A. Bennett, Lars Bertram, Rainer Biffar, Murielle Bochud, Michael Boehnke, Ingrid B. Borecki, Aron S. Buchman, Liisa Byberg, Harry Campbell, Natalia Campos Obanda, Jane A. Cauley, Peggy M. Cawthon, Henna Cederberg, Zhao Chen, Nam H. Cho, Hyung Jin Choi, Melina Claussnitzer, Francis Collins, Steven R. Cummings, Philip L. De Jager, Ilja Demuth, Rosalie A. M. Dhonukshe-Rutten, Luda Diatchenko, Gudny Eiriksdottir, Anke W. Enneman, Mike Erdos, Johan G. Eriksson, Joel Eriksson, Karol Estrada, Daniel S. Evans, Mary F. Feitosa, Mao Fu, Melissa Garcia, Christian Gieger, Thomas Girke, Nicole L. Glazer, Harald Grallert, Jagvir Grewal, Bok-Ghee Han, Robert L. Hanson, Caroline Hayward, Albert Hofman, Eric P. Hoffman, Georg Homuth, Wen-Chi Hsueh, Monica J. Hubal, Alan Hubbard, Kim M. Huffman, Lise B. Husted, Thomas Illig, Erik Ingelsson, Till Ittermann, John-Olov Jansson, Joanne M. Jordan, Antti Jula, Magnus Karlsson, Kay-Tee Khaw, Tuomas O. Kilpeläinen, Norman Klopp, Jacqueline S. L. Kloth, Heikki A. Koistinen, William E. Kraus, Stephen Kritchevsky, Teemu Kuulasmaa, Johanna Kuusisto, Markku Laakso, Jari Lahti, Thomas Lang, Bente L. Langdahl, Lenore J. Launer, Jong-Young Lee, Markus M. Lerch, Joshua R. Lewis, Lars Lind, Cecilia Lindgren, Yongmei Liu, Tian Liu, Youfang Liu, Östen Ljunggren, Mattias Lorentzon, Robert N. Luben, William Maixner, Fiona E. McGuigan, Carolina Medina-Gomez, Thomas Meitinger, Håkan Melhus, Dan Mellström, Simon Melov, Karl Michaëlsson, Braxton D. Mitchell, Andrew P. Morris, Leif Mosekilde, Anne Newman, Carrie M. Nielson, Jeffrey R. O’Connell, Ben A. Oostra, Eric S. Orwoll, Aarno Palotie, Stephen C. J. Parker, Munro Peacock, Markus Perola, Annette Peters, Ozren Polasek, Richard L. Prince, Katri Räikkönen, Stuart H. Ralston, Samuli Ripatti, John A. Robbins, Jerome I. Rotter, Igor Rudan, Veikko Salomaa, Suzanne Satterfield, Eric E. Schadt, Sabine Schipf, Laura Scott, Joban Sehmi, Jian Shen, Chan Soo Shin, Gunnar Sigurdsson, Shad Smith, Nicole Soranzo, Alena Stančáková, Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen, Elizabeth A. Streeten, Unnur Styrkarsdottir, Karin M. A. Swart, Sian-Tsung Tan, Mark A. Tarnopolsky, Patricia Thompson, Cynthia A. Thomson, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir, Emmi Tikkanen, Gregory J. Tranah, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Natasja M. van Schoor, Arjun Verma, Peter Vollenweider, Henry Völzke, Jean Wactawski-Wende, Mark Walker, Michael N. Weedon, Ryan Welch, H.-Erich Wichmann, Elisabeth Widen, Frances M. K. Williams, James F. Wilson, Nicole C. Wright, Weijia Xie, Lei Yu, Yanhua Zhou, John C. Chambers, Angela Döring, Cornelia M. van Duijn, Michael J. Econs, Vilmundur Gudnason, Jaspal S. Kooner, Bruce M. Psaty, Timothy D. Spector, Kari Stefansson, Fernando Rivadeneira, André G. Uitterlinden, Nicholas J. Wareham, Vicky Ossowski, Dawn Waterworth, Ruth J. F. Loos, David Karasik, Tamara B. Harris, Claes Ohlsson, Douglas P. Kiel

Abstract

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML version of this article.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Unspecified 5 10%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#10,747,146
of 12,119,647 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#18,428
of 19,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,052
of 285,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1,489
of 1,557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,119,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 285,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.