Relationship Between ABO Blood Group and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth deadliest cancer, with approximately 900,000 deaths annually. CRC is a multifactorial disease in which a set of factors, including environmental, hereditary, and genetic factors, are integrated into cancer development. Studies have suggested an association between hereditary antigens in the human blood group system and the risk of different cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between blood groups and CRC risk. Methods: A record-based retrospective study was performed between January 2017 and August 2021. This study targeted patients diagnosed with CRC during the study period. Data of patients who agreed to participate were collected using a pre-structured checklist. The extracted data included patients' demographic blood groups and risk factors, including history of inflammatory bowel disease or CRC. Results: A total of 199 patients, aged 22 to 96 years (mean age: 61.6 ± 14.7 years), were included. The blood groups of 101 (50.8%), 59 (29.6%), 26 (13.1%), and 13 (6.5%) patients were O, A, B, and AB, respectively. Colon cancer was the most frequently reported cancer (155/199, 77.9%) across all blood groups and showed the highest frequency among patients with blood group O (74/155, 47.7%), without statistical significance (P = 0.111). Conclusion: Our study showed a statistically significant relationship between AB and non-O blood types and colon cancer compared to the O blood group.
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 | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".