Bedtime misalignment and progression of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disruption of circadian rhythms, which frequently occurs during night shift work, may be associated with cancer progression. The effect of chronotype (preference for behaviors such as sleep, work, or exercise to occur at particular times of day, with an associated difference in circadian physiology) and alignment of bedtime (preferred vs. habitual), however, have not yet been studied in the context of cancer progression in women with breast cancer. Chronotype and alignment of actual bedtime with preferred chronotype were examined using the Morningness-Eveningness Scale (MEQ) and sleep-wake log among 85 women with metastatic breast cancer. Their association with disease-free interval (DFI) was retrospectively examined using the Cox proportional hazards model. Median DFI was 81.9 months for women with aligned bedtimes ("going to bed at preferred bedtime") (n = 72), and 46.9 months for women with misaligned bedtimes ("going to bed later or earlier than the preferred bedtime") (n = 13) (log rank p = 0.001). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, after controlling for other significant predictors of DFI, including chronotype (morning type/longer DFI; HR = 0.539, 95% CI = 0.320-0.906, p = 0.021), estrogen receptor (ER) status at initial diagnosis (negative/shorter DFI; HR = 2.169, 95% CI = 1.124-4.187, p = 0.028) and level of natural-killer cell count (lower levels/shorter DFI; HR = 1.641, 95% CI = 1.000-2.695, p = 0.050), misaligned bedtimes was associated with shorter DFI, compared to aligned bedtimes (HR = 3.180, 95% CI = 1.327-7.616, p = 0.018). Our data indicate that a misalignment of bedtime on a daily basis, an indication of circadian disruption, is associated with more rapid breast cancer progression as measured by DFI. Considering the limitations of small sample size and study design, a prospective study with a larger sample is necessary to explore their causal relationship and underlying mechanisms.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".