↓ Skip to main content

Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
Published in
Environmental Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel R. S. Middleton, Michael J. Watts, R. Murray Lark, Chris J. Milne, David A. Polya

Abstract

There are numerous methods for adjusting measured concentrations of urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. Few studies use objective criteria to quantify the relative performance of these methods. Our aim was to compare the performance of existing methods for adjusting urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. Creatinine, osmolality, excretion rate (ER), bodyweight adjusted ER (ERBW) and empirical analyte-specific urinary flow rate (UFR) adjustment methods on spot urinary concentrations of lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), non-arsenobetaine arsenic (As(IMM)) and iodine (I) from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2009-2010 and 2011-2012) were evaluated. The data were divided into a training dataset (n = 1,723) from which empirical adjustment coefficients were derived and a testing dataset (n = 428) on which quantification of the performance of the adjustment methods was done by calculating, primarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameter with UFR, with lower correlations indicating better performance and, secondarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameters with blood analyte concentrations (Pb and Cd), with higher correlations indicating better performance. Overall performance across analytes was better for Osmolality and UFR based methods. Excretion rate and ERBW consistently performed worse, often no better than unadjusted concentrations. Osmolality adjustment of urinary biomonitoring data provides for more robust adjustment than either creatinine based or ER or ERBW methods, the latter two of which tend to overcompensate for UFR. Modified UFR methods perform significantly better than all but osmolality in removing hydration variation, but depend on the accuracy of UFR calculations. Hydration adjustment performance is analyte-specific and further research is needed to establish a robust and consistent framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Environmental Science 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Chemistry 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,575,425
of 25,090,809 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#668
of 1,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,907
of 353,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,090,809 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 353,137 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 78% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.