The impact of <scp>ABO</scp> blood groups on clinical outcomes and susceptibility to <scp>COVID</scp>‐19: A retrospective study in an unselected population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ABO blood groups have been linked to susceptibility to infection with certain microorganisms, including coronaviruses. We examined the relationship between blood group and clinical outcomes in individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and compared their blood group distribution with the general population. METHODS: At the inception of the pandemic, all individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Kuwait were admitted to one designated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital and enrolled in a prospective registry. Patients admitted from February 24 to May 27, 2020, were stratified according to blood group. As a control, blood groups of 3,730,027 anonymized individuals representing almost Kuwait's entire population were obtained from a national database. RESULTS: Of 3305 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 37.1%, 25.5%, 28.9%, and 8.5% were groups O, A, B, and AB, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed no significant differences in severe clinical outcomes or death among the blood groups. However, multivariable analysis demonstrated that group A individuals had higher odds of developing pneumonia compared with non-group A (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.72, p < .036). Compared with the general population, the COVID-19 cohort had a lower frequency of group O, equivalent frequency of A, and higher frequency of B and AB. No significant difference in the RhD group was found. CONCLUSION: This study supports potential involvement of the ABO blood group system in predisposing to infection with SARS-CoV-2 in an unselected population. Examination of the mechanistic link between blood group and COVID-19 and its implications on controlling the current pandemic is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".