MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403477147 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088016

ABO blood types and head and neck cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies

2024· review· en· W4403477147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haixia Shi, Jingjing Yao, Chenchen Jiang, Wenying Xu, Zhongliang Jiang, Yan Chen, Yun Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisABO blood group systemObservational studySystematic reviewData extractionInternal medicinePublication biasWeb of scienceMEDLINECritical appraisalSubgroup analysisOncologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This research aims to explore the correlation between ABO blood groups and neoplasms in the head and neck region, specifically investigating the susceptibility of different blood groups to tumours. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: CNKI, WANFANG DATA, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were systematically searched from inception to January 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies of ABO blood type and head and neck tumours will be included in this study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A systematic literature review was performed using digital platforms on CNKI, WANFANG DATA, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for meta-analysis. Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Comparisons were made between blood types A, B, AB and their combined group versus O, along with subgroup analyses. Systematic analysis was performed by using Review Manager V.5.4 and Stata V.18 statistical software. RESULTS: 30 articles were included, involving 737 506 subjects, among which 21 382 were patients with head and neck tumours. The overall analysis indicated a significant association between type AB blood (OR 0.762, 95% CI 0.637 to 0.910) and a reduced risk of head and neck tumours. In the Caucasoid race, type A blood is significantly linked to an elevated likelihood of head and neck tumours (OR 1.353, 95% CI 1.076 to 1.702), while in the Mongoloid race, type AB blood is significantly linked to a reduced likelihood of developing tumours in the head and neck area (OR= 0.732, 95% CI 0.588 to 0.910). No significant associations were found in the subgroup analysis by gender. Regarding different types of cancer, type A blood is significantly associated with an increased risk of salivary gland tumours (OR 1.338, 95% CI 1.075 to 1.665), and type AB blood is significantly linked to a lower likelihood of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (OR 0.590, 95% CI 0.429 to 0.812). CONCLUSION: A correlation exists between ABO blood groups and tumours in the head and neck region. However, the link between blood type and head and neck tumours requires further confirmation through more prospective studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024510176.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.476
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.048 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207