The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Open accessAbstract
(1)Background: Realfooders have positioned themselves in social networks such as Instagram by posting photographs of recipes, advises, habits and nutritional behaviours which are advertised as reliable nutritional patterns and by their self-promotion as highly trained people in the field of nutrition which sometimes jeopardises the health of digital citizenry. (2) Methods: In this article, we develop a quantitative study for analysing the influence of selected Realfooders on 2,866,980 followers on Instagram, taking into account channel variables (gender, location, interests and motivations), followers’ variables (engagement, interaction and consumption) and some variables related to the message of 54 posts about breakfast. (3) Results: Selected Realfooders concentrate their followers in Spain, mostly women between 18 and 24 and between 35 and 44 years old who link their interests on food to the cult of the body and recreational areas. On the other hand, the content generated by Realfooders has been increasing its impact using advertising and marketing techniques for awaking consumer’s interest. (4) Conclusions: Educational and social agents are facing the challenge of low health literacy in young population. Therefore, it is necessary to design and implement strategies for developing critical thinking that allow them to assess the content generated by Realfooders and identify which recommendations can be harmful or beneficial to their health.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics
Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135848.001.0001 · Cited by 8,012
Cited by
De Kock, J. H., Latham, H. A., Leslie, S. J., Grindle, M., Munoz, S.-A., Ellis, L., Polson, R., & O’Malley, C. M. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-10070-3 · Cited by 940
KANALEY, J. A., COLBERG, S. R., CORCORAN, M. H., MALIN, S. K., RODRIGUEZ, N. R., CRESPO, C. J., KIRWAN, J. P., & ZIERATH, J. R. (2022) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002800 · Cited by 931
Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization
Van Veen, D., Van Uden, C., Blankemeier, L., Delbrouck, J.-B., Aali, A., Bluethgen, C., Pareek, A., Polacin, M., Reis, E. P., Seehofnerová, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02855-5 · Cited by 891
Atchison, C., Bowman, L. R., Vrinten, C., Redd, R., Pristerà, P., Eaton, J., & Ward, H. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043577 · Cited by 379
Chen, B., Wu, S., Song, Y., Webster, C., Xu, B., & Gong, P. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32258-4 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2013-02-12
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4213176465
- Cited by
- 7,753
- References
- 2
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ijerph
- The paper
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2013). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph
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.
