↓ Skip to main content

Does soy protein affect circulating levels of unbound IGF-1?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nutrition, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Does soy protein affect circulating levels of unbound IGF-1?
Published in
European Journal of Nutrition, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00394-017-1459-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Messina, Pamela Magee

Abstract

Despite the enormous amount of research that has been conducted on the role of soyfoods in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, the mechanisms by which soy exerts its physiological effects are not fully understood. The clinical data show that neither soyfoods nor soy protein nor isoflavones affect circulating levels of reproductive hormones in men or women. However, some research suggests that soy protein, but not isoflavones, affects insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1). Since IGF-1 may have wide-ranging physiological effects, we sought to determine the effect of soy protein on IGF-1 and its major binding protein insulin-like growth factor-binding protein (IGFBP-3). Six clinical studies were identified that compared soy protein with a control protein, albeit only two studies measured IGFBP-3 in addition to IGF-1. Although the data are difficult to interpret because of the different experimental designs employed, there is some evidence that large amounts of soy protein (>25 g/day) modestly increase IGF-1 levels above levels observed with the control protein. The clinical data suggest that a decision to incorporate soy into the diet should not be based on its possible effects on IGF-1.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 22%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 22%
Unspecified 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,843,513
of 13,603,280 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#921
of 1,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,414
of 264,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#39
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,603,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 264,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.