↓ Skip to main content

The inflammatory potential of diet and ovarian cancer risk: results from two prospective cohort studies

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
The inflammatory potential of diet and ovarian cancer risk: results from two prospective cohort studies
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, August 2017
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2017.246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fred K Tabung, Tianyi Huang, Edward L Giovannucci, Stephanie A Smith-Warner, Shelley S Tworoger, Elizabeth M Poole

Abstract

We used a food-based empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score to investigate whether diets with higher inflammatory potential are associated with increased ovarian cancer risk. We followed 186 314 women in the Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study-II, from 1984 to 2013, to examine associations between EDIP scores and ovarian cancer risk, using Cox regression analyses. During 3 454 514 person-years of follow-up, 989 ovarian cancer cases were identified. In pooled multivariable-adjusted analyses, higher EDIP scores (more pro-inflammatory diets) were not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (HRquintile5vs1 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P-trend=0.97). Similarly, we found no evidence of heterogeneity by histologic subtype (P-heterogeneity=0.52) or by tumour aggressiveness (P-heterogeneity=0.63). In contrast with two previous case-control studies that found a positive association between a literature-derived nutrient-based dietary inflammatory index and ovarian cancer risk, our prospective analyses using a food-based score observed no evidence of an association.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 August 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.246 www.bjcancer.com.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Unspecified 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#571,965
of 11,727,438 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#336
of 7,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,760
of 267,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#12
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,727,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 267,569 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.