↓ Skip to main content

Rare case of Killian-Pallister syndrome associated with idiopathic short stature detected with fluorescent in situ hybridization on buccal smear

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Cytogenetics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rare case of Killian-Pallister syndrome associated with idiopathic short stature detected with fluorescent in situ hybridization on buccal smear
Published in
Molecular Cytogenetics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13039-016-0239-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Sukarova-Angelovska, Mirjana Kocova, Gordana Ilieva, Natalija Angelkova, Elena Kochova

Abstract

Killian-Pallister syndrome (KPS) is a rare form of chromosomal mosaicism and is defined by the existence of an extra chromosome 12 in some cell lines in one individual. The degree of mosaicism varies among tissues and dictates the clinical presentation of the syndrome. The clinical features of Killian-Pallister syndrome include mental retardation, typical facial dysmorphism and pigmentation defects. We present a rare case of Killian-Pallister syndrome with severe form of the disease associated with isolated growth hormone deficiency and low-rate mosaicism on buccal smear. The absence of a marker chromosome 12p in lymphocyte cultures and the low degree of mosaicism lead to frequent misdiagnosis of this condition. The selection of tissue sampling is crucial in establishing the diagnosis of Killian-Pallister syndrome. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation on buccal smear remains the golden standard as a screening method if a suspicion of the syndrome exists.

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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Environmental Science 1 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cytogenetics
#166
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,528
of 312,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cytogenetics
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 312,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.