↓ Skip to main content

Polyphenolic compounds appear to limit the nutritional benefit of biofortified higher iron black bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.)

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
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
Polyphenolic compounds appear to limit the nutritional benefit of biofortified higher iron black bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.)
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-13-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elad Tako, Steve E Beebe, Spenser Reed, Jonathan J Hart, Raymond P Glahn

Abstract

Our objective was to determine if a biofortified variety of black bean can provide more bioavailable-iron (Fe) than a standard variety. Two lines of black beans (Phaseolus-vulgaris L.), a standard (DOR500; 59μg Fe/g) and biofortified (MIB465; 88μg Fe/g) were used. The DOR500 is a common commercial variety, and the MIB465 is a line developed for higher-Fe content. Given the high prevalence of Fe-deficiency anemia worldwide, it is important to determine if Fe-biofortified black beans can provide more absorbable-Fe.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 28%
Chemistry 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,688,569
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,175
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,605
of 225,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 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 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. 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 225,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.