The Association Between ABO Blood Group and Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluated the association between ABO blood group and the risk of preeclampsia (PE). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases from their inception to September 23, 2020. Methods: Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained through random-effects and fixed-effects models according to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was applied to explore the source of heterogeneity. We conducted a subgroup analysis by the publication year, study design, state, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. In addition, we calculated the rate of each ABO blood group in PE by total pooled effects. Results: A total of 12 articles with 714,153 patients were included in our analysis. Compared with people without PE (control group), the O blood group presented a lower risk of PE (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93–0.97). The AB (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12–1.91) blood group presented a higher risk. However, the total pooled OR and 95% CI for the A (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90–1.16) and B (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98–1.05) blood groups were not significant. The funnel plot and linear regression equation showed that there was no publication bias for the O, A, or B blood groups (all P > 0.05). However, the funnel plot and linear regression equation for the AB blood group were obviously asymmetric (P < 0.05), and the publication bias persisted even after the trim-and-fill method was applied (P < 0.05). Multivariable meta-regression analysis did not find a specific source of heterogeneity. The A blood group showed an association with early-onset PE (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.83), and the other blood groups showed no significant differences. In PE, the rates of the O, A, B, and AB blood groups decreased gradually (0.39, 0.33, 0.19, 0.07). Conclusion: These findings suggest that pregnant women with AB blood group are more likely to develop PE, and more attention should be paid to AB blood group whose blood pressure is high but not sufficient to diagnose PE. Systematic Review Registration: Prospero CRD42021227930.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".