MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912650532 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dey390

Rotating night shift work and menopausal age

2018· article· en· W2912650532 on OpenAlex
David Stock, Julia A. Knight, J. Raboud, Michelle Cotterchio, Susanne Strohmaier, Walter C. Willett, A. Heather Eliassen, Bernard Rosner, Susan E. Hankinson, Eva Schernhammer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstitutePublic Health OntarioToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSinai Health System
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNational Cancer InstituteCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsShift workMenopauseNight workMedicineCohortWork (physics)GerontologyInternal medicinePhysicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: How are rotating night shift schedules associated with age at menopause among a large, national cohort of shift working nurses? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our findings suggest that working rotating night shifts with sufficient frequency may modestly accelerate reproductive senescence among women who may already be predisposed to earlier menopause. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Younger age at menopause has been associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly those linked to reproduction. Night work has been associated with reproductive dysfunction, including disruption of menstrual cycle patterns. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cohort study was conducted among 80 840 women of the Nurses' Health Study 2 (NHS2), with prospective follow-up from 1991 through 2013. Loss-to-follow-up of the NHS2 is estimated to be <10%. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We assessed the association between cumulative and current rotating night shift work and age at natural menopause over 22 years of follow-up (1991-2013). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for menopause, adjusted for age, smoking status, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol consumption, reproductive factors and exogenous hormone use. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Over follow-up, 27 456 women (34%) reached natural menopause. Women who worked 20 or more months of rotating night shifts in the prior 2-year had an increased risk of earlier menopause (multivariable-adjusted (MV)-HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.16) compared to women without rotating night shift work. This risk was stronger among women undergoing menopause or otherwise censored under age 45 years (MV-HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46), than it was for those continuing in the study when >45 years old (MV-HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99-1.13). Working 10 or more years of cumulative rotating night work was also associated with higher risk of menopause among women reaching menopause under age 45 (MV-HR10-19 years = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03-1.44; MV-HR≥20 years = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.90-3.35), though not over the age of 45 years (MV-HR10-19 years = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.99-1.10; MV-HR≥20 years = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.89-1.15). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The degree to which observed effects of rotating night shifts on age at natural menopause are due to circadian disruption, rather than fatigue and stress associated with working more demanding schedules, is uncertain due to potential residual confounding by these factors. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study to assess the effects of night work on menopausal timing among a larger national cohort of shift working women. Women already prone to earlier menopause may further truncate their reproductive lifetime by working schedules comprising day as well as night shifts. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Center for Disease Control and Prevention/The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Grant 5R01OH009803 (PI: Schernhammer E), as well as UM1 CA176726 from the National Institute of Health. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the article; and decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

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.

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 score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.291 · 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