↓ Skip to main content

Soy-Based Therapeutic Baby Formulas: Testable Hypotheses Regarding the Pros and Cons

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Nutrition, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Soy-Based Therapeutic Baby Formulas: Testable Hypotheses Regarding the Pros and Cons
Published in
Frontiers in Nutrition, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2016.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cara J. Westmark

Abstract

Soy-based infant formulas have been consumed in the United States since 1909, and currently constitute a significant portion of the infant formula market. There are efforts underway to generate genetically modified soybeans that produce therapeutic agents of interest with the intent to deliver those agents in a soy-based infant formula platform. The threefold purpose of this review article is to first discuss the pros and cons of soy-based infant formulas, then present testable hypotheses to discern the suitability of a soy platform for drug delivery in babies, and finally start a discussion to inform public policy on this important area of infant nutrition.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Other 6 8%
Lecturer 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 29 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 30 39%
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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,483,897
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#1,423
of 5,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,197
of 422,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 422,379 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.