Night shift work, sleep quality and risk of endocrine-related cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cancer is a major public health concern as it is a leading cause of death worldwide. The risk of endocrine-related cancers may be associated with suboptimal sleep quality due to disruptions in circadian rhythm. However, the extent of this relationship is not clear and warrants a review summarizing recent research findings. This systematic review aims to provide an updated summary of the literature surrounding the association between night shift work, sleep quality, circadian rhythm disruption and the risk of endocrine-related cancers. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases have been searched for related cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. The search was limited to studies published in English, after the year 2000. Non peer-reviewed literature and randomized control trials, were excluded. Reviewers will independently extract data on study characteristics, sleep quality measures, circadian rhythm measures, cancer diagnosis, and outcome measures. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using the CLARITY tools. Results Data synthesis is ongoing. Associations between sleep quality, night shift work, circadian disruption and risk of endocrine-related cancer will be summarized and risk estimates will be reported for four endocrine-related cancers: breast, prostate, thyroid, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. If data are available, subgroup analyses will be carried out by cancer type, study design, and age group. Conclusions This review qualitatively synthesizes current literature to determine the extent of the association between sleep quality, night shift work, circadian rhythm disruption and the risk of endocrine-related cancers. These findings can contribute to population-level cancer prevention efforts and aid public health promotion of healthier sleep-related behaviours. Key messages The relationship between sleep quality and endocrine-related cancers should be explored further in public health research due to inconclusive evidence from current literature. The findings of this project can help promote healthy sleep behaviours and population-level cancer 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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".