MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081770373 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-4655

Abstract 4655: Social jetlag and lung cancer incidence in the Alberta's Tomorrow Project: A prospective cohort study

2020· article· en· W3081770373 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benny Rana, Andrew Harper, Grace Shen‐Tu, Cheryl Peters, Darren Brenner, Don Morris, Lin Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerDemographyBody mass indexProspective cohort studyHazard ratioCohortPopulationProportional hazards modelCohort studyCancerInternal medicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: Increased lung cancer risk has been associated with markers of circadian disruption (e.g., overly short or long sleep duration, shift work, circadian gene mutation) in both human and animal studies. However, no study to date has reported the association of social jetlag, the misalignment between the internal clock and the socially required timing of activities, with lung cancer risk. We, therefore, aim to investigate this association in the Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP), a population-based prospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada, and the potential effect modification of smoking behavior. Methods: Data on sleep patterns were collected on 19,436 (37.6% male) Albertans aged 35-69 years recruited from 2001-2015. Social jetlag was defined as the absolute difference in waking time between free day and workday that accounted for sleep debt, and categorized into three levels, 0 hours (32.52%), >0-1 hours (32.44%), and >1-4 hours (35.04%). Incident lung cancer cases were determined through linkage with the Alberta Cancer Registry by June 2018. Smoking behavior was defined as never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using a series of Cox proportional hazards regressions, adjusting for age, sex, recreational physical activity, sitting time, daily calorie consumption, body mass index, marital status, education, employment status, total household income, smoking and drinking behavior, family history of cancer and preexistence of medical condition. Results: A total of 117 incident lung cancer cases were identified during a medium of 9.6 years of follow-up, yielded 179,028 person-years. In the multivariable-adjusted model, a suggestive significant association between social jetlag and lung cancer risk was observed (>1-4 hours vs. 0: HR=1.67, 95% CI: 0.96-2.92, p for trend = 0.047). The increased lung cancer risk with social jetlag was retrained and heightened among daily smokers (>1-4 hours vs. 0: HR=2.72, 95% CI: 1.26-5.84, p for trend = 0.010), and attended to null among never smokers (>1-4 hours vs. 0: HR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.15-6.54, p for trend = 0.91) and former smokers (>1-4 hours vs. 0: HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.27-2.12, p for trend = 0.63). Latency multivariate-adjusted model excluding those diagnosed with cancer within 2 years of baseline assessment returned similar results. Conclusion: Increased risk for lung cancer was observed among adults who reported social jetlag, particularly daily smokers. Our findings suggest a potential lung cancer risk associated with switching sleep patterns between work and free days among smokers. Further studies are necessary to confirm these findings and elucidate the biological mechanisms. Citation Format: Benny Rana, Andrew Harper, Grace Shen-Tu, Cheryl Peters, Darren Brenner, Don G. Morris, Lin Yang. Social jetlag and lung cancer incidence in the Alberta's Tomorrow Project: A prospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 4655.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207