Shift work and cardiovascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of shift work is increasing in the general population. There is conflicting epidemiologic evidence on the association between shift work and cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies that measured shift work-cardiovascular disease associations. We screened 12,350 articles and identified 35 eligible studies. The pooled risk ratios (RR) for myocardial infarction, all coronary events and ischemic stroke were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15 to 1.31, I2 = 0), 1.24 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.39, I2 = 85%) and 1.05 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, I2 = 0), respectively. The population-attributable risks from shift work for myocardial infarction, all coronary events and ischemic stroke in Canada would be 7%, 7.3% and 1.6%, respectively. We found no evidence of publication bias. We report significant yet relatively modest associations for shift work and cardiovascular events. These results have implications for public policy and occupational medicine.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".