↓ Skip to main content

Blood sugar level follows perceived time rather than actual time in people with type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
72 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Blood sugar level follows perceived time rather than actual time in people with type 2 diabetes
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2016
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1603444113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chanmo Park, Francesco Pagnini, Andrew Reece, Deborah Phillips, Ellen Langer, Park, Chanmo, Pagnini, Francesco, Reece, Andrew, Phillips, Deborah, Langer, Ellen

Abstract

The current study investigates whether perceived time has an effect on blood glucose level in people with type 2 diabetes. The hypothesis is that perceived time will have a greater influence over blood glucose level than actual time. Changes in blood glucose levels were measured in 46 participants with diabetes while they completed simple tasks during a 90-min period. Participants' perception of time was manipulated by having them refer to clocks that were either accurate or altered to run fast or slow. Blood glucose levels changed in accordance with how much time they believed had passed instead of how much time had actually passed. These results are an example of the influence psychological processes can directly exert on the body.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Luxembourg 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 39%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 21%
Unspecified 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Other 11 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#118,275
of 11,530,762 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2,970
of 75,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,129
of 266,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#138
of 914 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,530,762 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 266,818 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 914 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.