MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

949 Shiftwork and breast cancer: epidemiology, burden, and implications for prevention

2018· article· en· W2800691326 on OpenAlexaffabout
France Labrèche, Marianne Harris, Joanne Kim, Chaojie Song, Paul A. Demers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill UniversityPublic Health OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travailOccupational Cancer Research CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyBreast cancerMedicineEpidemiology of cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Approximately one in five workers globally work night, evening, or rotating shifts. Shiftwork involving circadian disruption is a probable carcinogen for breast cancer. Our objective was to synthesise the current state of the epidemiological literature, report on shiftwork-associated breast cancer burden in Canada, and discuss implications for prevention. <h3>Methods</h3> A search was conducted for meta-analyses accompanied by a systematic review, published from 2010–2017, that included at least one meta-risk estimate (mRE) for breast cancer associated with any permanent/rotating night work exposure metric. For each included meta-analysis, heterogeneity values were extracted and an eight-point checklist was used to evaluate quality. An attributable fraction (AF) range for breast cancer, based on mREs from high quality meta-analyses and Canadian shiftwork survey data, was calculated using Levin’s equation. <h3>Results</h3> Seven meta-analyses collectively included 30 cohort and case-control studies spanning 1996–2016. Most reported statistically significant heterogeneity. In 5 meta-analyses that scored ≥6 points on the quality assessment checklist, mREs for ever/never night shiftwork exposure ranged from 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.25, n=9 studies) to 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.73, n=9 studies). Using these mREs as lower and upper values in Levin’s equation, the AF for breast cancer among the 1.5 million Canadian women who ever worked night/rotating shifts during 1961–2001 ranged from 2.04%–5.23%. This corresponds to an estimated 460–1180 annual incident breast cancers probably due to shiftwork; nearly half (200–510) are diagnosed among women in health care and social assistance. <h3>Discussion</h3> Summaries of 20 years of epidemiological evidence support shiftwork as a probable breast carcinogen, but considerable heterogeneity between studies poses a challenge for precisely evaluating breast cancer risk and burden. Given the potentially substantial burden of breast cancer due to shiftwork, applied research on workplace-based prevention of circadian disruption is acutely needed to identify effective solutions for sectors where shiftwork prevalence is high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207