↓ Skip to main content

Prenatal Factors Contribute to the Emergence of Kwashiorkor or Marasmus in Severe Undernutrition: Evidence for the Predictive Adaptation Model

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Prenatal Factors Contribute to the Emergence of Kwashiorkor or Marasmus in Severe Undernutrition: Evidence for the Predictive Adaptation Model
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035907
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terrence E. Forrester, Asha V. Badaloo, Michael S. Boyne, Clive Osmond, Debbie Thompson, Curtis Green, Carolyn Taylor-Bryan, Alan Barnett, Suzanne Soares-Wynter, Mark A. Hanson, Alan S. Beedle, Peter D. Gluckman

Abstract

Severe acute malnutrition in childhood manifests as oedematous (kwashiorkor, marasmic kwashiorkor) and non-oedematous (marasmus) syndromes with very different prognoses. Kwashiorkor differs from marasmus in the patterns of protein, amino acid and lipid metabolism when patients are acutely ill as well as after rehabilitation to ideal weight for height. Metabolic patterns among marasmic patients define them as metabolically thrifty, while kwashiorkor patients function as metabolically profligate. Such differences might underlie syndromic presentation and prognosis. However, no fundamental explanation exists for these differences in metabolism, nor clinical pictures, given similar exposures to undernutrition. We hypothesized that different developmental trajectories underlie these clinical-metabolic phenotypes: if so this would be strong evidence in support of predictive adaptation model of developmental plasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 22%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 29 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2022.
All research outputs
#20,402,552
of 25,076,138 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#177,606
of 217,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,962
of 167,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,928
of 3,736 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,076,138 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 167,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,736 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.