Is shift-work associated with increased risk of rectal cancer? A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15600 Background: Globally, more than 1.8 million people were diagnosed of colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2018, with over 30% of CRC in the rectum. Shift-work, involving circadian disruption, sleep deprivation and lifestyle changes, was designated as a probable cause of cancer by The International Agency for Research on Cancer. Previous studies investigating the impact of permanent night-shift work and rotating shift-work on rectal cancer risk showed controversial results. Thus, this meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed was conducted to identify all relevant studies published prior to January 2021 according to the established inclusion criteria. The quality assessment was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to estimate the association between the shift-work and rectal cancer risk. Based on heterogeneity significance, random-effect or fixed-effect model was used. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the night-shift and rotating-shift, respectively. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed, and trim and fill analysis was also conducted. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software (version 5.3; Cochrane library) and STATA 15.0 statistical software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX), and all P values were two-tailed, the test level was 0.05. Results: Thirty-seven articles were obtained from database searching. Three articles involving 1,063 rectal cancer cases were included. All studies were considered moderate to high quality. All included studies investigated on the association between shift-work and rectal cancer risk. A statistically significant association between shift-work and increased rectal cancer risk was found (OR 1.53, 95%CI: 1.31, 1.79, P< 0.00001, I 2 = 35%). In subgroup analyses, night-shift work was associated with a non-statistically significant increased risk of rectal cancer (OR 1.25, 95%CI: 0.47, 3.32, P = 0.66, I 2 = 93%). In contrast, Rotating-shift was associated with a statistically significant increased rectal cancer risk (OR 1.35, 95%CI: 1.10, 1.65, P = 0.004, I 2 = 6%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the result. Funnel plot, Egger's test (t = 1.69, P = 0.341), and Begg's test (z = 1.04, P = 0.296) found no publication bias of analysis. Trim and fill analysis on fixed-effect model showed the pooled OR kept stable after adding two “missing” studies (OR 1.403, 95%CI: 1.224, 1.609, P <0.05). Conclusions: The current meta-analysis demonstrates that shift-work is associated with increased rectal cancer risk. However, no association between night-shift work and rectal cancer risk was found. In contrast, association between rotating-shift work and increased rectal cancer risk was found. More original studies on this topic are needed to further explore shift-work impacts on rectal cancer risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".