Personal light-at-night exposures and components of variability in two common shift work industries: uses and implications for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Shift workers’ increased risk of various adverse health outcomes has been linked to light-at-night (LAN) exposure, but few studies have measured LAN exposure in workplaces. To inform future research methods, this study aimed to (i) measure shift workers’ exposures to LAN across industries, occupations, and work environments and (ii) assess components of variance across different exposure groupings and metrics. Methods Between October 2015 and March 2016, 152 personal full-shift measurements were collected from 102 night shift workers in emergency health services (paramedics, dispatchers) and healthcare industries (nurses, care aides, security guards, unit clerks, and laboratory, pharmacy, and respiratory therapy staff) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Descriptive and variance component analyses were conducted for the 23:00–05:00 period to characterize exposures using multiple metrics of potential biological relevance (median lux, 90 th percentile lux, sum of minutes ≥30 lux, and sum of minutes ≥100 lux). Results Average exposure levels were highest in the healthcare industry. By occupation, laboratory workers and care aides displayed the highest and emergency dispatch officers displayed the lowest levels for all LAN exposure metrics. Between-group variance was large relative to within-group variance for all exposure groupings and metrics, and increased as grouping specificity increased (moving from industry to occupation). Conclusions Results from this study suggest that high-level grouping schemes may provide a simple yet effective way of characterizing individual LAN exposures in epidemiological studies of shift work. Ongoing measurement of LAN exposures and assessment of exposure variability is needed in future studies of shift workers as a means to increase sampling efficiency, reduce measurement error, and maximize researchers’ ability to detect relationships where they exist.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".