Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Indicators of zinc status at the population level: a review of the evidence

Open access
Gibson, Rosalind S., Hess, Sonja Y., Hotz, Christine, Brown, Kenneth H.·2008·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

The role of zinc deficiency as an important cause of morbidity and impaired linear growth has prompted the need to identify indicators of population zinc status. Three indicators have been recommended – prevalence of zinc intakes below the estimated average requirement (EAR), percentage with low serum zinc concentrations, and percentage of children aged < 5 years who are stunted. This review outlines steps to estimate the prevalence of inadequate intakes, and confirm their validity based on the EARs set by International Zinc Nutrition Collaborative Group. Next, the appropriateness of serum zinc as a biochemical marker for population zinc status is confirmed by a summary of: (a) the response of serum zinc concentrations to zinc intakes; (b) usefulness of serum zinc concentrations to predict functional responses to zinc interventions; (c) relationship between initial serum zinc and change in serum zinc in response to interventions. Height- or length-for-age was chosen as the best functional outcome after considering the responses of growth, infectious diseases (diarrhoea, pneumonia), and developmental outcomes in zinc supplementation trials and correlation studies. The potential of other zinc biomarkers such as zinc concentrations in hair, cells, zinc-metalloenzymes, and zinc-binding proteins, such as metallothionein, is also discussed. Molecular techniques employing reverse transcriptase (RT)-polymerase chain reaction to measure mRNA in metallothionein and ZIP1 transporter hold promise, as do kinetic markers such as exchangeable zinc pools (EZP) and plasma zinc turnover rates. More research is needed to establish the validity, specificity, sensitivity, and feasibility of these new biomarkers, especially in community-settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114508006818

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Gibson, R. S., Hess, S. Y., Hotz, C., & Brown, K. H.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2008-06
Volume
99
Issue
S3
Pages
S14-S23
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2110745296
Cited by
308
References
2
FWCI
12.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Indicators of zinc status at the population level: a review of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0007114508006818
The paper
Gibson, R. S., Hess, S. Y., Hotz, C., & Brown, K. H. (2008). Indicators of zinc status at the population level: a review of the evidence. British Journal of Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114508006818

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.