Frequency of ABO and Rhesus blood groups in Saudi healthy blood donors versus non-Saudi in a retrospective study in Makkah City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: to assess the frequency of ABO and Rh blood groups among Saudi and non-Saudi healthy blood donors and to compare between them. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted; in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. It included 15,365 participants of 44 nationalities who have attended the blood bank of King Abdul Aziz Hospital. The collected data were age, sex, nationality, ABO, and Rhesus blood groups. Results: 46.8 % of the participants were O, 28.8 % A, 19.5 % B, and 4.9% AB. The nationalities with a higher frequency of blood group O were Saudi, Mauritanian, Yemeni, Thai, Malian, Sudanese, Jordanian, Indian, Moroccan, Somali, Malaysian, Indonesian, Myanmar, Nigerian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Algerian, Djibouti, Burkinabe, Eritrean, Ghanaian, Bahraini, Bosnian, Canadian, Gambian, Iraqi, and Sri Lankan. Those with a higher frequency of blood group A were Turkish, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Afghan, Chadian, French, Tunisian, Cameroonian, Ethiopian, and British. Those with a higher frequency of B were Nigerien, American, Nepalese, and two nationalities with higher AB frequency Filipino and Chinese. 91.6 % of all populations were Rh-positive, and 8.4% were Rh-negative. The Saudi participants were like some nationalities and differed from others. Conclusion: In Makkah city, the higher frequency of ABO blood group in Saudi and non -Saudi people is O followed by A, then B, and AB. The Rh-positive is predominant, and 8.4% of the participants are negative. The ABO and Rh blood groups' identifications are essential for providing suitable blood storage for individuals in need.
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) | 0.001 | 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".