Night Work and the Risk of Cancer Among Men
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Night work might influence cancer risk, possibly via suppression of melatonin release. In a population-based case-control study conducted in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between 1979 and 1985, job histories, including work hours, were elicited from 3,137 males with incident cancer at one of 11 anatomic sites and from 512 controls. Compared with men who never worked at night, the adjusted odds ratios among men who ever worked at night were 1.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25, 2.47) for lung cancer, 2.03 (95% CI: 1.43, 2.89) for colon cancer, 1.74 (95% CI: 1.22, 2.49) for bladder cancer, 2.77 (95% CI: 1.96, 3.92) for prostate cancer, 2.09 (95% CI: 1.40, 3.14) for rectal cancer, 2.27 (95% CI: 1.24, 4.15) for pancreatic cancer, and 2.31 (95% CI: 1.48, 3.61) for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Equivocal evidence or no evidence was observed for cancers of the stomach (odds ratio (OR) = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.85, 2.10), kidney (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.86, 2.35), and esophagus (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.80, 2.84) and for melanoma (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.49, 2.22). There was no evidence of increasing risk with increasing duration of night work, with risks generally being increased across all duration categories. Results suggest that night work may increase cancer risk at several sites among men.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it