↓ Skip to main content

American Association for Cancer Research

Article Metrics

Well-done, Grilled Red Meat Increases the Risk of Colorectal Adenomas

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Research, January 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Well-done, Grilled Red Meat Increases the Risk of Colorectal Adenomas
Published in
Cancer Research, January 1999
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rashmi Sinha, Wong Ho Chow, Martin Kulldorff, John Denobile, James Butler, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Rusty Weil, Robert N. Hoover, Nathaniel Rothman, Sinha, R, Chow, W H, Kulldorff, M, Denobile, J, Butler, J, Garcia-Closas, M, Weil, R, Hoover, R N, Rothman, N

Abstract

Red meat or meat-cooking methods such as frying and doneness level have been associated with an increased risk of colorectal and other cancers. It is unclear whether it is red meat intake or the way it is cooked that is involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer. To address this issue, we developed an extensive food frequency questionnaire module that collects information on meat-cooking techniques as well as the level of doneness for individual meat items and used it in a study of colorectal adenomas, known precursors of colorectal cancer. A case-control study of colorectal adenomas was conducted at the National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD) between April 1994 and September 1996. All cases (n = 146) were diagnosed with colorectal adenomas at sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy and histologically confirmed. Controls (n = 228) were screened with sigmoidoscopy and found not to have colorectal adenomas. The subjects completed a food frequency questionnaire and answered detailed questions on meat-cooking practices. We used frequency and portion size to estimate grams of meat consumed per day for total meat as well as for meat subgroups defined by cooking methods and doneness levels. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusted for age, gender, total caloric intake, reason for screening (routine or other), and several established risk factors for colorectal adenomas or cancer, including the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physical activity, and pack-years of cigarette smoking. There was an increased risk of 11% per 10 g/day (or 2.5 oz/week) of reported red meat consumption (OR, 1.11; CI, 1.03-1.19). The increased risk was mainly associated with well-done/very well-done red meat, with an excess risk of 29% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.29; CI, 1.08-1.54) versus an excess of 10% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.10; CI, 0.96-1.26) for consumption of rare/medium red meat. High-temperature cooking methods were also associated with increased risk; 26% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.06-1.50) of grilled red meat and 15% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.15; CI, 0.97-1.36) of pan-fried red meat consumption. There was an increased risk of colorectal adenomas associated with higher intake of red meat, most of which was due to the subgroup of red meat that was cooked until well done/very well done and/or by high-temperature cooking techniques, such as grilling. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that carcinogenic compounds formed by high-temperature cooking techniques, such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, may contribute to the risk of developing colorectal tumors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 7%
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 66 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Chemistry 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 10 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,073,627
of 16,621,802 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Research
#760
of 14,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,502
of 157,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Research
#13
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,621,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 157,707 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 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 94% of its contemporaries.