Light and Exercise and Melatonin Production in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melatonin may protect against breast cancer. Light and other factors influence melatonin, but the evidence is limited. The authors conducted a study to determine factors related to melatonin. Women volunteers recruited in Toronto, Canada, from 2002 to 2004 collected urine for three nights (winter and summer), took periodic light measurements, and recorded exposures in a diary. The relation of each variable to log-transformed creatinine-corrected 6-sulfatoxymelatonin in overnight urine was determined by use of generalized estimating equation linear regression. The final model was based on 1,054 measurement days from 213 participating women. None of the light variables was related to the log of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin. A significant interaction between season and day length was included in the final model. The most significant factor was duration of exercise (beta = 0.072; p = 0.004, two-tailed), which increased the amount of melatonin produced. Exercise duration later in the day was more significant (beta = 0.108; p = 0.0009, two-tailed). There was no difference between moderate or strenuous exercise. The failure to find a relation between light brightness and melatonin may be due to the difficulty of measuring this, as well as the importance of the light spectrum, which could not be measured. It is possible that the protective effect of exercise with respect to breast cancer may operate in part through an effect on melatonin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".