| Title |
Smoking and Long-Term Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: The EPIC-InterAct Study in European Populations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes Care, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2337/dc14-1020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
The InterAct Consortium, Annemieke M.W. Spijkerman, Daphne L. van der A, Peter M. Nilsson, Eva Ardanaz, Diana Gavrila, Antonio Agudo, Larraitz Arriola, Beverley Balkau, Joline W. Beulens, Heiner Boeing, Blandine de Lauzon-Guillain, Guy Fagherazzi, Edith J.M. Feskens, Paul W. Franks, Sara Grioni, José María Huerta, Rudolf Kaaks, Timothy J. Key, Kim Overvad, Domenico Palli, Salvatore Panico, M. Luisa Redondo, Olov Rolandsson, Nina Roswall, Carlotta Sacerdote, María-José Sánchez, Matthias B. Schulze, Nadia Slimani, Birgit Teucher, Anne Tjonneland, Rosario Tumino, Yvonne T. van der Schouw, Claudia Langenberg, Stephen J. Sharp, Nita G. Forouhi, Elio Riboli, Nicholas J. Wareham |
| Abstract |
The aims of this study were to investigate the association between smoking and incident type 2 diabetes, accounting for a large number of potential confounding factors, and to explore potential effect modifiers and intermediate factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 11 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Peru | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 161 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 48 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,811,531
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Care
#2,399
of 10,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,935
of 276,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Care
#37
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 276,411 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.