↓ Skip to main content

Study on PM2.5 pollution and the mortality due to lung cancer in China based on geographic weighted regression model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Study on PM2.5 pollution and the mortality due to lung cancer in China based on geographic weighted regression model
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5844-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qilong Cao, Guoqiang Rui, Ying Liang

Abstract

PM2.5 has become a major component of air pollution in China and has led to a series of health problems. The mortality rate caused by lung cancer has reached the point where it cannot be ignored in China. Air pollution is becoming more and more serious in China, which is increasingly affecting people's lives and health. Considering the variations in the geographical environment in China, this paper studied the relationship between PM2.5 concentration and lung cancer mortality based on the geographical weighted regression model in 31 provinces in 2004 and 2008, autonomous regions and municipalities of China. The results indicated there was a significant positive correlation between PM2.5 concentration and lung cancer mortality (r = 0.0052, P = 0.036). Additionally, the longer the time of exposure to PM2.5 is, the higher morbidity is. It is suggested that the Chinese government should launch some environmental policy, especially in those areas with severe PM2.5 pollutions, and keep the citizens away from exposure to PM2.5 pollution in the long term.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 4 19%
Engineering 3 14%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,247,735
of 14,007,708 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,645
of 9,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,563
of 274,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,007,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,624 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 274,104 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.