Prevalence of Red Blood Cell Major Blood Group Antigens and Phenotypes among Omani Blood Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Most literature on the frequencies of red blood cell (RBC) phenotypes are published in Europeans and Africans countries, with the frequencies in the Omani population unknown. We sought to determine the prevalence of RBC blood group phenotypes among Omani blood donors. METHODS: ), MNS (M, N, S, s), and P1. RESULTS: A total of 337 Omani blood donors were tested. The most common blood group was O+ (44.9%). Among the tested blood donors studied, 89.3% were RhD positive with R1r being the most common Rh phenotype. The k antigen was found at a frequency of 99.4%, while 4.5% of the blood donors studied were K+. The most common phenotype in the Duffy blood group system was Fy(a-b-), while the most common phenotypes in the Kidd and MNS blood group systems were Jk(a+b+) and M+N-S+s+ at 47.0% and 22.6%, respectively. The Le(a+) and Le(b+) antigens were found in 21.7% and 67.3% of the blood donors, respectively. One Jk(a-b-), one Le(a+b+), and two Lu(a-b-) individuals were identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the frequencies of RBC phenotypes among the Omani blood donors. The study's results show Duffy blood group frequencies that resemble what has been reported in the African population, and higher frequencies of the rare null phenotypes compared to European populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".