↓ Skip to main content

Adult height is associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer: a Mendelian randomisation study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
11 tweeters


5 Dimensions

Readers on

28 Mendeley
Adult height is associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer: a Mendelian randomisation study
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, March 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41416-018-0011-3
Pubmed ID

Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, Christina M. Nagle, Aaron P. Thrift, Paul D. P. Pharoah, Ailith Ewing, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Wei Zheng, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Peter A. Fasching, Matthias W. Beckmann, Diether Lambrechts, Ignace Vergote, Sandrina Lambrechts, Els Van Nieuwenhuysen, Mary Anne Rossing, Jennifer A. Doherty, Kristine G. Wicklund, Jenny Chang-Claude, Audrey Y. Jung, Kirsten B. Moysich, Kunle Odunsi, Marc T. Goodman, Lynne R. Wilkens, Pamela J. Thompson, Yurii B. Shvetsov, Thilo Dörk, Tjoung-Won Park-Simon, Peter Hillemanns, Natalia Bogdanova, Ralf Butzow, Heli Nevanlinna, Liisa M. Pelttari, Arto Leminen, Francesmary Modugno, Roberta B. Ness, Robert P. Edwards, Joseph L. Kelley, Florian Heitz, Andreas du Bois, Philipp Harter, Ira Schwaab, Beth Y. Karlan, Jenny Lester, Sandra Orsulic, Bobbie J. Rimel, Susanne K. Kjær, Estrid Høgdall, Allan Jensen, Ellen L. Goode, Brooke L. Fridley, Julie M. Cunningham, Stacey J. Winham, Graham G. Giles, Fiona Bruinsma, Roger L. Milne, Melissa C. Southey, Michelle A. T. Hildebrandt, Xifeng Wu, Karen H. Lu, Dong Liang, Douglas A. Levine, Maria Bisogna, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Andrew Berchuck, Daniel W. Cramer, Kathryn L. Terry, Elisa V. Bandera, Sara H. Olson, Helga B. Salvesen, Liv Cecilie Vestrheim Thomsen, Reidun K. Kopperud, Line Bjorge, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Leon F. A. G. Massuger, Tanja Pejovic, Amanda Bruegl, Linda S. Cook, Nhu D. Le, Kenneth D. Swenerton, Angela Brooks-Wilson, Linda E. Kelemen, Jan Lubiński, Tomasz Huzarski, Jacek Gronwald, Janusz Menkiszak, Nicolas Wentzensen, Louise Brinton, Hannah Yang, Jolanta Lissowska, Claus K. Høgdall, Lene Lundvall, Honglin Song, Jonathan P. Tyrer, Ian Campbell, Diana Eccles, James Paul, Rosalind Glasspool, Nadeem Siddiqui, Alice S. Whittemore, Weiva Sieh, Valerie McGuire, Joseph H. Rothstein, Steven A. Narod, Catherine Phelan, Harvey A. Risch, John R. McLaughlin, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, Usha Menon, Simon A. Gayther, Susan J. Ramus, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Anna H. Wu, Malcolm C. Pike, Chiu-Chen Tseng, Jolanta Kupryjanczyk, Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska, Agnieszka Budzilowska, Iwona K. Rzepecka, Penelope M. Webb


Observational studies suggest greater height is associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, but cannot exclude bias and/or confounding as explanations for this. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can provide evidence which may be less prone to bias. We pooled data from 39 Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium studies (16,395 cases; 23,003 controls). We applied two-stage predictor-substitution MR, using a weighted genetic risk score combining 609 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between genetically predicted height and risk were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Greater genetically predicted height was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk overall (pooled-OR (pOR) = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11 per 5 cm increase in height), and separately for invasive (pOR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) and borderline (pOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02-1.29) tumours. Women with a genetic propensity to being taller have increased risk of ovarian cancer. This suggests genes influencing height are involved in pathways promoting ovarian carcinogenesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Mathematics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
of 14,033,149 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
of 8,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 277,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,033,149 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 277,014 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 74% of its contemporaries.