3 ms·
I thought this was some expert-level trolling at first, but your post history suggests you’re acting in good faith, so: Blood types are categorized as A/B/AB/O
by wswope 5y ago
I thought this was some expert-level trolling at first, but your post history suggests you’re acting in good faith, so:
Blood types are categorized as A/B/AB/O because of the presence (or for O, absence) of protein markers on the surface of blood cells. A/B/C/D would be a much less descriptive system.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 5y agoThis is what I get for trying to tell that story from memory. What I intended to say was that the original blood groups were A, B, and C, and only with later research into the antibodies and surface proteins was it discovered that 'C' was really an 'AB' group. 'O' wasn't in the original set because none of the original donors had type-O blood, nor was Rh-factor discovered for the same reason. The original clotting discoveries weren't wrong, but they were dangerously not-right, as in "Your blood turns to jelly in your veins" not-right. The relevant point is that early research (especially when there isn't a well-understood causality story, as is the case here) is more likely to be off due to small sample size than representative of the reality for the global population. I would treat a claim as broad as "AI Recognises Race in Medical Images" as the kind of thing that will end up with giant qualifiers on it as follow-up work is done.