International Society of Blood Transfusion Working Party on Red Cell Immunogenetics and Blood Group Terminology Report of Gothenburg, Barcelona and four virtual business meetings: Update on blood group systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Working Party (WP) on Red Cell Immunogenetics and Blood Group Terminology (RCI&BGT) held six business meetings between December 2021 and June 2024. This report describes the new blood group systems and antigens ratified during these meetings. Materials and Methods Candidate systems and antigens were reviewed according to serological, genetic and biological evidence. This evidence was matched against defined criteria, and the acknowledged systems/antigens were assigned a unique identifier. Results Four new systems, ER (ISBT 044), CD36 (ISBT 045), ATP11C (ISBT 046) and MAL (ISBT 047), were ratified. CD36 and ATP11C were de novo entries, while ER and MAL systems resolved the genetic basis for the Er and AnWj antigens. Thirteen antigens were added to existing systems: one each to LU (005), YT (011), SC (013), LW (016), KN (022), GLOB (028); an antithetical pair to KEL (006); two antigens to RHAG (030); and three to CTL2 (039). Two CTL2 antigens defined the hitherto unresolved antithetical antigens, Cs a /Cs b , whose genetic basis coincides with those of variants responsible for the HNA‐3a/3b neutrophil antigens, respectively. Conclusion As of June 2024, the ISBT has acknowledged 47 blood group systems, comprising 366 antigens. The WP continues to ratify new systems and antigens, which are available on the ISBT website ( http://www.isbtweb.org/working-parties/red-cell-immunogenetics-and-blood-group-terminology/ ).
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".