Night-Shift Work and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Results From a Canadian Case-Control Study, the Prostate Cancer and Environment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Night-shift work involving disruption of circadian rhythms has been associated with breast cancer risk. A role in prostate cancer is also suspected, but evidence is limited. We investigated the association between night-shift work and prostate cancer incidence in the Prostate Cancer and Environment Study (PROtEuS), a population-based case-control study conducted in 2005-2012 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were 1,904 prostate cancer cases (432 high-grade cancers) and 1,965 population controls. Detailed work schedules for each job held for at least 2 years (n = 15,724) were elicited in face-to-face interviews. Night-shift work was defined as having ever worked ≥3 hours between midnight and 5:00 am ≥3 nights/month for ≥1 year. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between night-shift work and prostate cancer, adjusting for age, ancestry, and education. No association was found between overall prostate cancer and night-shift work metrics, including ever exposure, duration, intensity, cumulative exposure, rotating shifts, and early-morning shifts. For none of the exposure indices was there evidence of heterogeneity in odds ratios between low- and high-grade cancers. Sensitivity analyses restricting exposures to ≥7 nights/month or considering screening history yielded similar results. Our findings lend no support for a major role of night-shift work in prostate cancer development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".