Association between scar formation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and ABO Blood Group Association of ABO Blood Group with scar formation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate whether scar formation in the chest region following cardiac surgery differs according to blood groups. A total of 581 patients who underwent cardiac surgery between 2015 and 2025 were included in the study. Among them, 240 had blood group A, 200 blood group O, 100 blood group B, and 41 blood group AB. Patients who presented to the Cardiovascular Surgery outpatient clinic at least six months after their operation were evaluated, and their chest incisions were assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The scores were recorded and compared according to the ABO blood group system. In addition, the relationship of Rh blood group, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HT), and age with scar formation was also analyzed. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of Rh factor, DM, HT, or age (p> 0.05). When evaluated according to VSS, scar formation was significantly higher in patients with blood groups B and AB compared with those with blood groups A and O (p<0.001). No statistically significant difference was observed between blood groups B and AB or between A and O. Our study demonstrated an association between ABO blood group and chest scar formation following cardiac surgery. The observed relationship between blood group and scar development may contribute to scar management in both diagnostic and therapeutic contexts.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it