MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The serological and genetic basis of the <i>cis</i>‐AB blood group in Korea

2004· article· en· W2145778405 on OpenAlexaff
D. Cho, Seung Hyun Kim, Mee Jeong Jeon, K.‐L. Choi, Seung‐Jung Kee, Min-Hee Shin, Jong Hee Shin, Soon‐Pal Suh, Mark H. Yazer, Dong‐Wook Ryang

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyGenotypeAlleleRestriction fragment length polymorphismBiologyPolymerase chain reactionMolecular biologyGeneticsPolymorphism (computer science)PhenotypeGroup BGroup AGeneMedicineAntibodyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The cis-AB blood group is rare, although relatively common amongst Koreans. The serological characteristics and genetic basis of Korean cis-AB blood donors were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP), designed to detect the cis-AB01 allele, was performed on 194 AB samples which demonstrated weak or unusual expression of either or both of the A or B antigens. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Sixty cis-AB01 donors were identified. cis-AB01/O01 or O02 were the most common genotypes (36/60) detected only in A(2)B(3) donors, and cis-AB01/B101 (nine of 60) was the least common genotype identified only in A(2)B donors. Surprisingly cis-AB01/A102 (15/60) was identified in a variety of phenotypes (A(1)B(3), A(1)B(x) or el, A(int)B(3)).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207