↓ Skip to main content

Life as an evacuee after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident is a cause of polycythemia: the Fukushima Health Management Survey

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Life as an evacuee after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident is a cause of polycythemia: the Fukushima Health Management Survey
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akira Sakai, Tetsuya Ohira, Mitsuaki Hosoya, Akira Ohtsuru, Hiroaki Satoh, Yukihiko Kawasaki, Hitoshi Suzuki, Atsushi Takahashi, Gen Kobashi, Kotaro Ozasa, Seiji Yasumura, Shunichi Yamashita, Kenji Kamiya, Masafumi Abe

Abstract

The Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster forced people to evacuate their hometowns. Many evacuees from the government-designated evacuation zone were forced to change their lifestyle, diet, exercise, and other personal habits. The Comprehensive Health Check (CHC), 1 of 4 detailed surveys of The Fukushima Health Management Survey (FHMS), was implemented to support the prevention of lifestyle-related disease. The aim of this study was to analyze changes in red blood cell count (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb) levels, and hematocrit (Ht) levels by comparing data from the medical health checkup before and after the disaster in individuals who were 40 years old or older.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Psychology 6 13%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 6 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#627,908
of 16,123,630 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#629
of 11,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,515
of 308,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#69
of 1,080 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,123,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 308,115 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,080 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 93% of its contemporaries.