↓ Skip to main content

Perfluorinated compounds are related to breast cancer risk in greenlandic inuit: A case control study

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, October 2011
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Perfluorinated compounds are related to breast cancer risk in greenlandic inuit: A case control study
Published in
Environmental Health, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-10-88
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva C Bonefeld-Jorgensen, Manhai Long, Rossana Bossi, Pierre Ayotte, Gert Asmund, Tanja Krüger, Mandana Ghisari, Gert Mulvad, Peder Kern, Peter Nzulumiki, Eric Dewailly

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer for women in the western world. From very few cases an extraordinary increase in BC was observed in the Inuit population of Greenland and Canada although still lower than in western populations. Previous data suggest that exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) might contribute to the risk of BC. Rat studies showed that perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) cause significantly increase in mammary fibroadenomas. This study aimed at evaluating the association between serum levels of POPs/PFCs in Greenlandic Inuit BC cases and their controls, and whether the combined POP related effect on nuclear hormone receptors affect BC risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 157 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 21%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 35 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 16%
Chemistry 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 39 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,136,027
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#241
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,249
of 133,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 133,853 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.