↓ Skip to main content

Why would associations between cardiometabolic risk factors and depressive symptoms be linear?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Why would associations between cardiometabolic risk factors and depressive symptoms be linear?
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0199-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter de Jonge, Annelieke M Roest

Abstract

In medical science, researchers mostly use the linear model to determine associations among variables, while in reality many associations are likely to be non-linear. Recent advances have shown that associations may be regarded as parts of complex, dynamic systems for which the linear model does not yield valid results. Using as an example the interdepencies between organisms in a small ecosystem, we present the work of Sugihara et al. in Science 2012, 338:496-500 who developed an alternative non-parametric method to determine the true associations among variables in a complex dynamic system. In this context, we discuss the work of Jani et al. recently published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, (personal communication is incorrect; we never communicated) describing a non-linear, J-shaped curve between a series of cardiometabolic risk factors and depression. Although the exact meaning of these findings may not yet be clear, they represent a first step in a different way of thinking about the relationships among medical variables, namely going beyond the linear model.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/14/139.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Psychology 6 22%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 2 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,642,268
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,514
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,748
of 262,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#67
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 262,889 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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.