↓ Skip to main content

The common use of improper control diets in diet-induced metabolic disease research confounds data interpretation: the fiber factor

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition & Metabolism, January 2018
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
The common use of improper control diets in diet-induced metabolic disease research confounds data interpretation: the fiber factor
Published in
Nutrition & Metabolism, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12986-018-0243-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Pellizzon, Matthew R. Ricci

Abstract

Diets used to induce metabolic disease are generally high in fat and refined carbohydrates and importantly, are usually made with refined, purified ingredients. However, researchers will often use a low fat grain-based (GB) diet containing unrefined ingredients as the control diet. Such a comparison between two completely different diet types makes it impossible to draw conclusions regarding the phenotypic differences driven by diet. While many compositional differences can account for this, one major difference that could have the greatest impact between GB and purified diets is the fiber content, both in terms of the level and composition. We will review recent data showing how fiber differences between GB diets and purified diets can significantly influence gut health and microbiota, which itself can affect metabolic disease development. Researchers need to consider the control diet carefully in order to make the best use of precious experimental resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Chemical Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 21 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#607,494
of 16,110,099 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition & Metabolism
#117
of 789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,117
of 462,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition & Metabolism
#7
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,110,099 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 789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 462,190 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.