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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Acceptability of Iron- and Zinc-Biofortified Pearl Millet (ICTP-8203)-Based Complementary Foods among Children in an Urban Slum of Mumbai, India
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2017.00039 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samantha Lee Huey, Sudha Venkatramanan, Shobha A. Udipi, Julia Leigh Finkelstein, Padmini Ghugre, Jere Douglas Haas, Varsha Thakker, Aparna Thorat, Ashwini Salvi, Anura V. Kurpad, Saurabh Mehta |
| Abstract |
Biofortification, a method for increasing micronutrient content of staple crops, is a promising strategy for combating major global health problems, such as iron and zinc deficiency. We examined the acceptability of recipes prepared using iron- and zinc-biofortified pearl millet (FeZnPM) (~80 ppm Fe, ~34 ppm Zn, varietal ICTP-8203), compared to conventional pearl millet (CPM) (~20 ppm Fe, ~19 ppm Zn) in preparation for an efficacy trial. Our objective was to examine the acceptability of FeZnPM compared to CPM among young children and mothers living in the urban slums of Mumbai. Standardized traditional feeding program recipes (n = 18) were prepared with either FeZnPM or CPM flour. The weight (g) of each food product was measured before and after consumption by children (n = 125) and the average grams consumed over a 3-day period were recorded. Mothers (n = 60) rated recipes using a 9-point hedonic scale. Mean intakes and hedonic scores of each food product were compared using t-tests across the two types of pearl millet. There were no statistically significant differences in consumption by children (FeZnPM: 25.27 ± 13.0 g; CPM: 21.72 ± 6.90 g) across the food products (P = 0.28). Overall mean hedonic scores for all recipes were between 7 to 9 points. CPM products were rated higher overall (8.22 ± 0.28) compared to FeZnPM products (7.95 ± 0.35) (P = 0.01). FeZnPM and CPM were similarly consumed and had high hedonic scores, demonstrating high acceptability in this population. These results support using these varieties of pearl millet in a proposed trial [http://Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02233764; Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI), reference number REF/2014/10/007731, CTRI number CTRI/2015/11/006376] testing the efficacy of FeZnPM for improving iron status and growth. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#8,244,715
of 24,846,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#2,007
of 6,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,338
of 321,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,846,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 321,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.