↓ Skip to main content

Meeting report: suggestions for studies on future health risks following the Fukushima accident

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, March 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Meeting report: suggestions for studies on future health risks following the Fukushima accident
Published in
Environmental Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0013-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomoko Inamasu, Sara J Schonfeld, Masafumi Abe, Pernille E Bidstrup, Isabelle Deltour, Takashi Ishida, Tetsuo Ishikawa, Ausrele Kesminiene, Tetsuya Ohira, Hitoshi Ohto, Shinichi Suzuki, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, Hirooki Yabe, Seiji Yasumura, Joachim Schüz, Shunichi Yamashita

Abstract

In October 2013, the Radiation Medical Science Center of the Fukushima Medical University and the Section of Environment and Radiation of the International Agency for Research on Cancer held a joint workshop in Fukushima, Japan to discuss opportunities and challenges for long-term studies of the health effects following the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. This report describes four key areas of discussion -- thyroid screening, dosimetry, mental health, and non-radiation risk factors -- and summarizes recommendations resulting from the workshop. Four recommendations given at the workshop were to: 1) build-up a population-based cancer registry for long-term monitoring of the cancer burden in the prefecture; 2) enable future linkage of data from the various independent activities, particularly those related to dose reconstruction and health status ascertainment; 3) establish long-term observational studies with repeated measurements of lifestyle and behavioural factors to disentangle radiation and non-radiation factors; and 4) implement primary prevention strategies targeted for populations affected by natural disasters, including measures to better understand and address health risk concerns in the affected population. The workshop concluded that coordinated data collection between researchers from different institutes and disciplines can both reduce the burden on the population and facilitate efforts to examine the inter-relationships between the many factors at play.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 14 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,412,095
of 25,403,829 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#459
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,353
of 278,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,403,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 278,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 66% of its contemporaries.