MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210167501 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.364

RF-291 Long working hours and prostate cancer risk: results from a population-based case-control study

2021· article· en· W3210167501 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlotte Salmon, Marie‐Élise Parent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOdds ratioConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Shift workLogistic regressionCancerDemographyPopulationCase-control studyGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Recent evidence suggests that long work hours have a detrimental effect on health, possibly through unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, stress, diet and sleep disturbances. Hardly any research has evaluated whether long work hours relate to cancer incidence. Objectives To investigate the association between long work hours and prostate cancer risk, overall and by cancer aggressiveness. Methods We used data from the Prostate Cancer & Environment Study, a case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada, in 2005–2012. In all, 1,931 incident cases, aged < 7 6, were ascertained across hospitals in 2005–2009 and 1,994 age-matched (± 5 years) controls were randomly selected from the electoral list. Detailed descriptions of each job held for ≥ 2 years, including working hours, were elicited through in-person interviews. Long work hours were defined as working time exceeding the Canadian standard of 40 hours/week. Unconditional logistic regression was used to derive odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between long work hours and prostate cancer risk, adjusted for age, education and ancestry. We also investigated whether associations varied according to a history of work at night. Results Overall, 2,477 subjects (64.6%) reported ever working > 40 hours/week. Occupations entailing long hours were most often related to management, administration and sales. Ever exposure to long work hours was associated with an OR of prostate cancer of 1.21 (95%CI 1.06–1.39), while it was of 1.50 (95%CI 1.23–1.83) for a cumulative duration of 11–23 years of long work hours. The ORs for aggressive cancer among men who engaged in long work hours and who had a history of work at night were 1.40 (95%CI 0.85–2.30), and 1.20 (95%CI 0.91–1.57) among those without such a history. Conclusion Findings suggest that long work hours, especially among men with a history of work at night, may influence prostate 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207