Melatonin Production and Light Exposure of Rotating Night Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreased melatonin production, due to acute suppression of pineal melatonin secretion by light exposure during night work, has been suggested to underlie higher cancer risks associated with prolonged experience of night work. However, the association between light exposure and melatonin production has never been measured in the field. In this study, 24-h melatonin production and ambulatory light exposure were assessed during both night-shift and day/evening-shift periods in 13 full-time rotating shiftworkers. Melatonin production was estimated with the excretion of urinary 6-sulfatoxymelatonin (aMT6s), and light exposure was measured with an ambulatory photometer. There was no difference in total 24-h aMT6s excretion between the two work periods. The night-shift period was characterized by a desynchrony between melatonin and sleep-wake rhythms, as shown by higher melatonin production during work and lower melatonin production during sleep when working night shifts than when working day/evening shifts. Light exposure during night work showed no correlation with aMT6s excreted during the night of work (p > .5), or with the difference in 24-h aMT6s excretion between the two work periods (p > .1). However, light exposure during night work was negatively correlated with total 24-h aMT6s excretion over the entire night-shift period (p < .01). In conclusion, there was no evidence of direct melatonin suppression during night work in this population. However, higher levels of light exposure during night work may have decreased total melatonin production, possibly by initiating re-entrainment and causing internal desynchrony. This interpretation is consistent with the proposition that circadian disruption, of which decreased melatonin production is only one of the adverse consequences, could be the mediator between night shiftwork and cancer risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".