| Title |
Long-Term Programming Effects of Early Nutrition — Implications for the Preterm Infant
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Perinatology, April 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.jp.7211308 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alan Lucas |
| Abstract |
The current focus of nutritional science has shifted from meeting needs to determining the biological effects that nutrition has on immediate and lifetime health. Of particular interest is the concept of programming, the idea that "a stimulus or insult during a critical or sensitive period of development can have long-term or lifetime effects on an organism." Evidence that early nutrition has such "programming" effects in animals is overwhelming. In humans, retrospective observations show a relationship between adult disease and size in early life, though it is difficult to prove nutritional cause from observational associations and therefore difficult to use such data to underpin health policy. However, the results of randomized intervention trials of early nutrition with long-term follow-up are emerging. These experimental studies show that nutrition in early life has a major impact on health into early adulthood, notably on cardiovascular disease risk, bone health and cognitive function. These new findings have major biological, social and medical implications and should increasingly underpin health practices. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 222 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 41 | 18% |
| Unknown | 39 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 10% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 41 | 18% |
| Unknown | 47 | 21% |
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 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,265,771
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Perinatology
#2,430
of 2,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,269
of 57,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Perinatology
#20
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 57,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.