Analysis of ABO and Rh Blood Type Association With Acute COVID-19 Infection in Hospitalized Patients: A Superficial Association Among a Multitude of Established Confounders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected millions of people worldwide, and considerable effort is focused on identifying certain populations at increased risk. ABO blood types have been associated with disease susceptibility; however, evidence remains limited. Our aim was to determine the association between ABO/Rh blood type with disease susceptibility and mortality among admitted COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19 requiring admission was undertaken. Demographics and pertinent medical history were analyzed with respect to ABO/Rh blood type: between the cases and a control population; as well as with respect to mortality in the COVID-19 population in univariate analysis. Potential confounding factors were evaluated by multivariate models. The main outcomes were disease susceptibility by comparison of blood type prevalence between populations, and mortality within the COVID-19 population. RESULTS: A total of 825 cases (admitted with confirmed COVID-19 infection by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) and 396 controls (seen at the same institution during the calendar year of 2019) were included. The COVID-19 population was older with male predominance. It was heavily represented by blood types O-positive (53%) and A-positive (23%), while lower representation was observed in groups B-positive (odds ratio (OR): 0.61, P = 0.013) and AB-positive (OR: 0.46, P = 0.014). Neither relationship remained significant in pairwise analysis. Within the COVID-19 population, no mortality difference was appreciated between ABO groups (P = 0.312), but higher mortality was observed in Rh negative group (P = 0.01). The latter of which was significantly confounded by age (P < 0.001), sex (P = 0.022), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.001), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (P < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: While type A blood appears to be weakly more prevalent with respect to B and AB types in hospitalized patients, strong confounders of age and sex dilute this significance. Rh-negative patients appear to have a higher mortality, although this too is strongly confounded. Overall, ABO and Rh blood types do not have a significant relationship with susceptibility and mortality with COVID-19 infection in our population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».