The association between shift work exposure and cognitive impairment among middle-aged and older adults: Results from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shift work, especially rotating and night shift work, has been linked to a wide range of detrimental health outcomes. Occupational factors like shift work and their potential impact on cognitive functions have received little attention, and the evidence is inconclusive. The objective of our study is to explore associations between shift work exposure and cognitive impairment indicators based on comparisons with the normative standards from the Canadian population. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were performed using baseline Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging database, including 47,811 middle-aged and older adults (45-85 years). Three derived shift work variables were utilized: ever exposed to shift work, shift work exposure in longest job, and shift work exposure in current job. Four cognitive function tests were utilized, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Tests (immediate and delayed) representing memory domain, and Animal Fluency, and Mental Alteration, representing the executive function domain. All cognitive test scores included in study were normalized and adjusted for the participant's age, sex, education and language of test administration (English and French), which were then compared to normative data to create "cognitive impairment' variables. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine associations between shift work variables and cognitive impairment individually (memory and executive function domains), and also for overall cognitive impairment. RESULT: Overall, one in every five individuals (21%) reported having been exposed to some kind of shift work during their jobs. Exposure to night shift work (both current and longest job) was associated with overall cognitive impairment. In terms of domain-based measures, night shift work (longest job) was associated with memory function impairment, and those exposed to rotating shift work (both current and longest job) showed impairment on executive function measures, when compared to daytime workers. CONCLUSION: This study suggests disruption to the circadian rhythm, due to shift work has negative impact on cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults and this warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".