↓ Skip to main content

HNF4A-related Fanconi syndrome in a Chinese patient: a case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
HNF4A-related Fanconi syndrome in a Chinese patient: a case report and review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1740-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiaojiao Liu, Qian Shen, Guomin Li, Hong Xu

Abstract

The p.R63W mutation in hepatocyte nuclear factor-4 alpha (HNF4A) leads to a heterogeneous group of disorders with various clinical presentations. Recently, patients with congenital hyperinsulinism and Fanconi syndrome due to the p.R63W mutation in HNF4A have been described. Although other clinical variations such as liver dysfunction have been associated with HNF4A mutations, hearing impairment has not previously been associated. We report the case of a patient with Fanconi syndrome and hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia caused by the mutation of HNF4A presenting with additional auditory phenotypes. We present a case report of a 10-year-old girl of Chinese Han ethnicity who presented with renal Fanconi syndrome, infantile hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia, and transient cholestasis. In addition, she presented with bilateral severe hearing loss. Gene analysis showed a heterozygous p.R63W mutation in the HNF4A gene that is responsible for Fanconi syndrome and hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. This is the first case of HNF4A mutation associated with an auditory phenotype. It expands the clinical phenotypes and supports speculation in the literature that HNF4A may be a candidate gene for deafness. In conclusion, hearing loss may be found in children with HNF4A-related Fanconi syndrome, and auditory function should be assessed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,287
of 3,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,546
of 327,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#54
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,963 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 327,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.