The impact of night shift work on breast cancer: Results from the Burden of Occupational Cancer in Canada Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We estimated the proportion and number of female breast cancer cases in Canada attributable to night shift work, a probable cause of breast cancer. METHODS: Levin's equation was used to calculate population attributable fractions (PAFs) among Canadian women who ever worked night/rotating shifts from 1961 to 2000, accounting for labor turnover and survival to the year 2011. The calculated PAFs were applied to 2011 Canadian breast cancer incidence statistics to obtain the number of attributable cases. RESULTS: Approximately 1.5 million women ever worked night/rotating shifts during 1961-2000 and survived to 2011. The PAFs ranged from 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-6.2) to 5.2% (95% CI: 3.7-13.6), and 470 to 1200 incident breast cancer cases in 2011 were likely due to shift work, of which 38% would have been diagnosed among women in health-related occupations. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to increase the certainty of this association, but current evidence supports workplace-based prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".