P-290 Number of jobs, jobs duration and risk of prostate cancer: A case-control study in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> Successive job changes may reflect precarious employment, job dissatisfaction or promotions, all of which can result in accrued stress, disrupted social connections and health-altering circumstances and behaviours. Evidence is lacking on the potential role of job stability in cancer development. <h3>Objectives</h3> We investigated the association between the number of jobs held and jobs duration over the career, and the risk of prostate cancer, overall and by cancer aggressiveness. <h3>Methods</h3> Data from the Prostate Cancer & Environment Study, a population-based case-control study conducted in 2005–2012 in Montreal, Canada were used. Incident cases (n=1,931), aged < 76 years, were ascertained across hospitals in the Montreal area. Population controls (n=1,994) from the same area, frequency-matched to cases by age (±5 years), were identified from the electoral list. Information on the number of paid jobs held for ≥ 1 year throughout the career and the duration of each job was elicited during face-to-face interviews. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for age, ancestry and education. <h3>Results</h3> Subjects had held 5 jobs, on average (± 3), with a mean job duration of 11.1 years (± 7.9). A greater number of jobs held was associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer. The OR for men who had had > 6 jobs was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.04–1.46), compared to men who had held 1–3 jobs, with no differences according to cancer aggressiveness. Conversely, men who had held shorter jobs, on average, had a higher risk of prostate cancer, following a dose-response pattern (p-trend 0.047). The association was more pronounced for non-aggressive tumours. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our results suggest that job stability throughout the career may have a protective effect against prostate cancer. Further in-depth analyses are warranted. These findings are novel and require replication.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".