ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
A machine-learning method for biobank-scale genetic prediction of blood group antigens.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-wide association study identifies protective genetic factors in active blood donors against multiple diseases.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Fundamentals of big data and artificial intelligence in transfusion medicine.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Blood donor biobank pipeline to collect genome-based samples for research.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Proof-of-principle: nanopore adaptive sampling enables full blood group genome analysis and resolution of hybrid alleles.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A key element for successful blood transfusion is compatibility of the patient and donor red blood cell (RBC) antigens. Precise antigen matching reduces the risk for immunization and other adverse transfusion outcomes. RBC antigens are encoded by specific genes, which allows developing computational methods for determining antigens from genomic data. We describe here a classification method for determining RBC antigens from genotyping array data. Random forest models for 39 RBC antigens in 14 blood group systems and for human platelet antigen (HPA)-1 were trained and tested using genotype and RBC antigen and HPA-1 typing data available for 1,192 blood donors in the Finnish Blood Service Biobank. The algorithm and models were further evaluated using a validation cohort of 111,667 Danish blood donors. In the Finnish test data set, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) balanced accuracy for 39 models was 99.9 (98.9-100)%. We were able to replicate 34 out of 39 Finnish models in the Danish cohort and the median (IQR) balanced accuracy for classifications was 97.1 (90.1-99.4)%. When applying models trained with the Danish cohort, the median (IQR) balanced accuracy for the 40 Danish models in the Danish test data set was 99.3 (95.1-99.8)%. The RBC antigen and HPA-1 prediction models demonstrated high overall accuracies suitable for probabilistic determination of blood groups and HPA-1 at biobank-scale. Furthermore, population-specific training cohort increased the accuracies of the models. This stand-alone and freely available method is applicable for research and screening for antigen-negative blood donors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.