The Impact of Different Types of Shift Work on Blood Pressure and Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shift work (SW) encompasses 20% of the European workforce. Moreover, high blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death globally. This review aimed to synthesize the magnitude of the potential impact of SW on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and hypertension (HTN). MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for epidemiological studies evaluating BP and/or HTN diagnosis among shift workers, compared with day workers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and the results were expressed as pooled mean differences or odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Forty-five studies were included, involving 117,252 workers. We found a significant increase in both SBD and DBP among permanent night workers (2.52 mmHg, 95% CI 0.75-4.29 and 1.76 mmHg, 95% CI 0.41-3.12, respectively). For rotational shift workers, both with and without night work, we found a significant increase but only for SBP (0.65 mmHg, 95% CI 0.07-1.22 and 1.28 mmHg, 95% CI 0.18-2.39, respectively). No differences were found for HTN. Our findings suggest that SW is associated with an increase of BP, mainly for permanent night workers and for SBP. This is of special interest given the large number of susceptible workers exposed over time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it