ABO blood group and risk of newly diagnosed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A case-control study in Han Chinese population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ABO blood group has been associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, whether ABO blood group is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) remains unknown. The present study aimed to clarify this issue. METHODS: A hospital-based case-control study was performed in southwestern China. A total of 583 newly ultrasound-diagnosed NAFLD cases and 2068 controls were included. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of developing NAFLD were calculated by multivariate logistic regression. A propensity score was developed for adjustment and matching. RESULTS: The proportions of blood groups A, B, AB and O were 31%, 26%, 8% and 35%, respectively. Non-O blood groups were found to be significantly associated with an increased risk of NAFLD (the fully adjusted OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.91); moreover, compared with blood group O, the fully adjusted ORs of developing NAFLD were 1.50 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.99) for blood group A, 1.59 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.14) for blood group B, and 1.37 (95% CI: 0.86, 2.18) for blood group AB. Similar results were obtained in both propensity-score-adjusted and propensity-score-matched analyses. No evidence of significant effect modification for the association of ABO blood group with the risk of NAFLD was found (all Pinteraction>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Non-O blood groups are significantly associated with an increased risk of NAFLD. Our findings provide some epidemiological evidence for a possible role of ABO glycosyltransferase in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. However, these findings need to be validated by future studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".