Is shift-work associated with increased risk of esophageal cancer for males? A meta-analysis.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
190 Background: Globally, more than 570,000 people are diagnosed of esophageal cancer each year. Shift-work involving circadian disruption was designated as a probable cause of cancer by The International Agency for Research on Cancer. Previous studies investigating the relationship between shift-work and esophageal cancer among showed controversial results. Thus, this meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed was conducted to identify all relevant studies published prior to September 2020 according to the established inclusion criteria. The quality assessment was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The pooled odds risk (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to estimate the association between the shift-work and esophageal cancer risk. Random-effect or fixed-effect model was used to calculate the pooled OR, based on heterogeneity significance. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on night-shift versus rotating-shift. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were also performed. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software (version 5.3; Cochrane library) and STATA 12.0 statistical software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX), and all P values were two-tailed, the test level was 0.05. Results: 21 articles were obtained from database searching, and 9 articles were obtained from other sources. 3 articles involving 52,098 participants were included. All studies were considered moderate to high quality. All included studies investigated only males on the association between shift-work and esophageal cancer risk. A statistically significant association between shift-work and increased esophageal cancer risk among males was found (OR 2.09, 95%CI: 1.48, 2.94, P< 0.0001, I 2= 29%). In subgroup analyses, night-shift work was associated with a non-statistically significant increased risk of esophageal cancer (OR 1.56, 95%CI: 0.96, 2.53, P= 0.07, I 2= 0%). In contrast, Rotating-shift was associated with increased esophageal cancer risk (OR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.72, 4.57, P < 0.0001, I 2= 0%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the result. Funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test found no publication bias of analysis (P = 0.572). Conclusions: The current meta-analysis demonstrates that shift-work is associated with increased esophageal cancer risk for males. However, no association between night-shift work and esophageal cancer risk was found. In contrast, association between rotating-shift work and increased esophageal cancer risk was found. Original studies on females regarding shift-work and esophageal cancer risk are lacking. More original studies on this topic for both male and female are needed to further explore shift-work impacts on esophageal cancer risk.
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 | 0,008 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,057 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».