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 |
Comparison of two modes of vitamin B12supplementation on neuroconduction and cognitive function among older people living in Santiago, Chile: a cluster randomized controlled trial. a study protocol [ISRCTN 02694183]
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-10-100 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hugo Sánchez, Cecilia Albala, Lydia Lera, José Luis Castillo, Renato Verdugo, Manuel Lavados, Eva Hertrampf, Alex Brito, Lindsay Allen, Ricardo Uauy |
| Abstract |
Older people have a high risk of vitamin B12 deficiency; this can lead to varying degrees of cognitive and neurological impairment. CBL deficiency may present as macrocytic anemia, subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord, or as neuropathy, but is often asymptomatic in older people. Less is known about subclinical vitamin B12 deficiency and concurrent neuroconduction and cognitive impairment. A Programme of Complementary Feeding for the Older Population (PACAM) in Chile delivers 2 complementary fortified foods that provide approximately 1.4 μg/day of vitamin B12 (2.4 μg/day elderly RDA). The aim of the present study is to assess whether supplementation with vitamin B12 will improve neuroconduction and cognitive function in older people who have biochemical evidence of vitamin B12 insufficiency in the absence of clinical deficiency. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 22% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 25% |
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 09 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,593,944
of 23,184,056 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,173
of 1,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,488
of 132,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#31
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,184,056 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 132,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.