Rotating shift work associated with obesity in men from northeastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While some studies have suggested associations between shift work and obesity, few have been population-based or considered multiple shift schedules. Since obesity is linked with several chronic health conditions, understanding which types of shift work influence obesity is important and additional work with more detailed exposure assessment of shift work is warranted. METHODS: Using multivariate polytomous logistic regression, we investigated the associations between shift work (evening/night, rotating and other shift schedules) and overweight and obesity as measured by body mass index cross-sectionally among 1561 men. These men had previously participated as population controls in a prostate cancer case-control study conducted in northeastern Ontario from 1995 to 1999. We obtained information on work history (including shift work), height and weight from the existing self-reported questionnaire data. RESULTS: We observed an association for ever (vs. never) having been employed in rotating shift work for both the overweight (OR [odds ratio] = 1.34; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.05-1.73) and obese (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.12-2.21) groups. We also observed nonsignificant associations for ever (vs. never) having been employed in permanent evening/night shifts. In addition, we found a significant trend of increased risk for both overweight and obesity with increasing duration of rotating shift work. CONCLUSION: Both the positive association between rotating shift work and obesity and the suggested positive association for permanent evening/night shift work in this study are consistent with previous findings. Future population-based research that is able to build on our results while examining additional shift work characteristics will further clarify whether some shift patterns have a greater impact on obesity than others.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".