<i>ABO</i> O blood group as a risk factor for platelet reactivity in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an unpredictable, potentially catastrophic adverse effect resulting from an immune response to platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complexes. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with positive functional assay as the outcome in a large discovery cohort of patients divided into 3 groups: (1) functional assay-positive cases (n = 1269), (2) antibody-positive (functional assay-negative) controls (n = 1131), and (3) antibody-negative controls (n = 1766). Significant associations (α = 5 × 10-8) were investigated in a replication cohort (α = 0.05) of functional assay-confirmed HIT cases (n = 177), antibody-positive (function assay-negative) controls (n = 258), and antibody-negative controls (n = 351). We observed a strong association for positive functional assay with increasing PF4/heparin immunoglobulin-G (IgG) level (odds ratio [OR], 16.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.83-19.74; P = 1.51 × 10-209) and female sex (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .034). The rs8176719 C insertion variant in ABO was significantly associated with positive functional assay status in the discovery cohort (frequency = 0.41; OR, 0.751; 95% CI, 0.682-0.828; P = 7.80 × 10-9) and in the replication cohort (OR, 0.467; 95% CI, 0.228-0.954; P = .0367). The rs8176719 C insertion, which encodes all non-O blood group alleles, had a protective effect, indicating that the rs8176719 C deletion and the O blood group were risk factors for HIT (O blood group OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.26-1.61; P = 3.09 × 10-8). Meta-analyses indicated that the ABO association was independent of PF4/heparin IgG levels and was stronger when functional assay-positive cases were compared with antibody-positive (functional assay-negative) controls than with antibody-negative controls. Sequencing and fine-mapping of ABO demonstrated that rs8176719 was the causal single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Our results clarify the biology underlying HIT pathogenesis with ramifications for prediction and may have important implications for related conditions, such as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".