Lifetime Exposure To Stress At Work And Prostate Cancer Risk In A Population-Based Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The workplace is reported to be the main source of stress among Canadian workers. The potential impact of chronic psychological stress on cancer incidence is of growing concern but evidence is lacking. We examined the association between lifetime work-related stress and prostate cancer risk in a large population-based case-control study. Methods Cases were 1933 men with histologically-confirmed incident prostate cancer, aged ≤75 years and diagnosed between 2005 and 2009. Concurrently, 1994 population controls from the same residential area and age distribution were randomly selected from electoral lists. Detailed lifestyle and work histories (including perceived stress, from any source, for each job held) were collected during in-person interviews. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between work-related stress and prostate cancer risk. Results Over their lifetime, 59.3% of cases and 55.8% of controls reported at least one job as stressful. Overall, the mean cumulative duration of stressful jobs was of 24.7 years. Prostate cancer risk was neither associated with a history of work stress (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.87-1.16) nor with its duration (OR=1.03 for each 10-year increment, 95% CI: 0.98-1.08). Results were largely unchanged according to cancer aggressiveness, or when lifestyle factors (alcohol, smoking, physical activity and diet) were included in the models. Among subjects younger than 65 years at diagnosis/interview, a positive association was observed with duration of work stress (OR=1.10 for each 10-year increment, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19). Discussion Unlike previous studies, our work stress assessment covered the entire work history. Work stress was not associated with overall prostate cancer risk. However, a positive association was observed among younger subjects, comprising a higher proportion of white collar workers, suggesting that a cohort effect may be at play.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".