MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982352048 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-11-1081

Light Exposure and Melatonin among Rotating Shift Nurses—Letter

2012· letter· en· W1982352048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sylvia Rabstein, Thomas Behrens, Thomas Brüning

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelatoninLight pollutionShift workCircadian rhythmLight intensityMedicinePhysiologyInternal medicinePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with great interest the recent publication by Grundy and colleagues (1) on the influence of light at night exposures on melatonin levels among Canadian rotating shift nurses. This study contributes to the ongoing research in the field of possible mechanisms linking shift work effects with chronic diseases, especially breast cancer. The authors hypothesize that light exposure and history of long-term shift work influence melatonin levels. Light exposure measurements of a light data logger were concentrated by using the average light intensity from 12 midnight to 5:00 am. The authors did not find a strong association between light exposure and melatonin production. However, a long-term history of shift work was associated with an increase in peak melatonin levels.In general, exposure assessment is a crucial issue in the analysis of epidemiologic studies, which is highly prone to error. Peak exposure may indicate the presence of an exposure threshold, whereas cumulative or average exposure measures often reflect a hypothesized time-dependent dose–response relationship (2).In the analysis of a potential link between shift work, light-at-night, melatonin and health outcomes, “light pollution” can have many different aspects (3). As an interventional study showed, the study subjects' sensitivity to light at night was less after a week of bright light exposure during the day as compared with a week of dim light exposure. Recent changes in light history, as well as night or daytime levels of peak light exposure, may therefore play a more important role in the synthesis of melatonin than average exposure to light at night (4). Here, on the one hand, periods of peak light at day or night could be relevant metrics. On the other hand, average light at night as a single exposure metric could be incapable to capture an acquired reduction in sensitivity to light, which may result in exposure misclassification and failure to detect a possible association between light exposure and melatonin synthesis.Hence, it is important to analyze the data with respect to different exposure metrics, particularly when the underlying biologic mechanism is unknown (2). As the association between a reduction in nocturnal melatonin production and the risk of cancer may be driven by other exposure metrics, namely, levels of peak light exposures, considering different modeling strategies, may be a valuable approach in future epidemiologic studies of light pollution.See the Response, p. 558No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0200.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207