↓ Skip to main content

Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4000 IU) per day on biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, July 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4000 IU) per day on biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients
Published in
Nutrition Journal, July 2004
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-3-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reinhold Vieth, Samantha Kimball, Amanda Hu, Paul G Walfish

Abstract

For adults, vitamin D intake of 100 mcg (4000 IU)/day is physiologic and safe. The adequate intake (AI) for older adults is 15 mcg (600 IU)/day, but there has been no report focusing on use of this dose.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 117 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Other 16 13%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 37 30%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 19 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,582,713
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#572
of 1,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,330
of 53,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 53,417 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.