Maternal-newborn ABO Blood Group Congruence Among Consecutive Births and Risk of Serious Neonatal Infection: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differing ABO blood groups between a mother and her fetus may confer a lower risk of serious neonatal infection. How sensitization in the first pregnancy influences this phenomenon in a subsequent pregnancy is unclear. Accordingly, this study determined whether maternal-newborn ABO blood group incongruence in a first pregnancy further modifies the risk of serious infection in a subsequent pregnancy marked by ABO incongruency. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study used linked patient-level datasets in Ontario, Canada, from 2008 to 2022. Included were mothers with 2 consecutive live births, with recorded maternal and newborn ABO blood group data. The exposure considered both first- and second-born siblings' ABO blood group congruency with their mother. The outcome was a serious neonatal infection within 27 days after birth. Logistic regression models generated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for gestational age at birth. RESULTS: Included were 14,739 mother-infant triads. Relative to maternal-newborn congruency in the second pregnancy, incongruent ABO blood groups in the second pregnancy were associated with an aOR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53-0.97) for a serious neonatal infection arising in the second-born infant. However, if the first and second siblings each had incongruent ABO blood groups with their mother, the aOR of serious infection in the second-born infant was not significantly lower [0.74 (95% CI, 0.52-1.06)]. CONCLUSIONS: Second-born infants whose ABO blood group was incongruent with that of their mother had a lower risk of serious neonatal infection. However, ABO incongruence from a prior birth did not modify that relation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".