MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14483: Correlating Blood Type, Infection Risk, and Illness Severity in Patients With COVID-19

2021· article· en· W3217751110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vikas Yellapu, Shani V Daniel, Naif L Hindosh, Douglas S. Corwin, Richard Snyder, Mathai Chalunkal

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakIllness severitySeverity of illnessIntensive care medicineBetacoronavirusInternal medicineEmergency medicineDiseaseVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There have been over 13 million cases of COVID-19 cases with a 2% mortality rate [1]. Over the past year there has been a significant progress in the understanding and management of COVID-19 infections. There are still many factors and complications of COVID-19 that have yet to be elucidated. There have been multiple studies looking at the possible link between ABO group type and increased risk of mortality. Many studies from China, Europe and Canada indicate that blood group “O” had lower risk of susceptibility and severe infection[2-4]. We wanted to identify weather this trend was applicable within our hospital network in Eastern Pennsylvania. We wanted to identify through retrospective analysis if there is an association between ABO type, Race, Gender, and mortality at 30-day or 90 days. Methods: We identified n=568 patients between February 2020 to June 2020 that were admitted to the hospital for treatment of COVID-19 that also had historical data regarding ABO grouping. Demographics, length of stay, intubations, and smoking history. Once data was collected, statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS for means, standard deviations, and Chi-squared test for non-parametric testing. Results: The breakdown of blood groups in our populations was [ A: 35.1%, B: 11.6%, AB: 7.9%, O:45.3% ]. The average age of patients by blood group was [A:70.9±6 , B: 68.6±15, AB:66.3±12, O: 65±17], The percentage of females in each group is [A:45%, B: 35%, AB:67%, O:50%]. The mean BMI for all groups were 31±7 (p>0.05) and there was no significant difference between blood groups with length of stay [A:8±6.1 , B: 10.5±9.6, AB:8.3±6.7, O: 9±8 (p>0.05)] There was no significant difference in mortality rate among the blood groups during admission [ A: 26%, B: 16%, AB: 13%, O:24% (p=0.17)] or the rate of intubation [ A: 10%, B: 15%, AB: 11%, O:12% (p=0.72)]. Conclusion: Our findings indicate there is no significant difference between mortality, inpatient length of stay, or proportion of intubations between different blood groups. Our population of blood groups was distributed close to distribution of blood group in the general population. While there have been studies that indicate there is a protective nature of type O blood group, we did not see this in our cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→