Low ultraviolet-B exposure may explain some of the link between night shift work and increased risk of prostate cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The paper by Papantoniou et al. reported that night shift work was associated with prostate cancer risk, with higher odds ratios for longer duration of exposure and for higher risk tumors.1 The primary mechanisms proposed to explain the finding were lower production of melatonin and circadian rhythm disruption. The authors reported lower sun exposure and vitamin D deficiency did not explain the findings. However, their analysis of the role of vitamin D in explaining the associations was based on past sun exposure, which is a poor index of vitamin D production since vitamin D cannot be produced from sun exposure in Spain for the darkest four-to-six months of the year or in early morning or late afternoon.2 Thus, without more information about sun exposure times, use of sunscreen, clothing worn and/or 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, there is not enough information in this study to evaluate the role of UVB and vitamin D in the risk of prostate cancer. There is a large body of research finding that solar UVB and vitamin D reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Geographical ecological studies have found significant inverse correlations between indices of solar UVB doses and prostate cancer incidence and/or mortality rates in Australia, Nordic countries and the United States,3 and the mechanisms whereby vitamin D reduces risk of prostate cancer are well known.3 A study based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study found significant inverse associations “for men born in a region of high solar radiation (relative risk, 0.49, 95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.90 for high versus low solar radiation), with a slightly greater reduction for fatal than for nonfatal prostate cancer. Frequent recreational sun exposure in adulthood was associated with a significantly reduced risk of fatal prostate cancer only (relative risk, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.99).”4 A vitamin D trial in which men with low grade prostate cancer were given 4,000 IU/d vitamin D3 for a year found “24 of 44 subjects (55%) showed a decrease in the number of positive cores or decrease in Gleason score; five subjects (11%) showed no change; 15 subjects (34%) showed an increase in the number of positive cores or Gleason score.”5 In comparison with historical control, there was a significant difference in the number of positive cores (decreased by about one in the trial vs. increased by about one in the controls). Lower 25(OH)D concentrations have been found more strongly correlated with aggressive prostate cancer than non-aggressive cancer,6 which supports the finding in Ref. 1 that risk from night shift work was higher for high risk tumors. A study of night work by males in Canada found an increased risk of many types of cancer including prostate cancer.7 In a letter to the editor, it was pointed out that most of the cancers with increased risk have been found to have risk inversely correlated with solar UVB doses in several ecological studies.8 In further support, it was noted that among nurses in the United States, night shift work was associated with reduced risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, and that solar ultraviolet exposure is the greatest risk factor for these cancers.9 Thus, night shift workers should be advised that they should keep their 25(OH)D concentrations above 75–100 nmol/L through whatever combination of solar or artificial UVB exposure, diet and supplements works best for them. Doing so would also help them reduce risk of many other types of disease.10
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».