Sleep disturbances and the risk of lung cancer: a meta-epidemiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The relationship between sleep disturbances and lung cancer is complex and bidirectional. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to explore the potential association between sleep disruption and the risk of pulmonary cancer. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to retrieve relevant studies. We employed the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the observational studies. Stata 17.0 was used to synthesize and conduct a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used funnel plot analysis and Egger’s regression test to evaluate potential publication bias. Results A total of 11 studies were included with 469,691 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Compared with 7–8 h of sleep time, short sleep duration was associated with a 13% higher lung cancer risk [OR, 1.13; 95%CI: 1.02–1.25; I 2 = 67.6%; P = 0.018] and long sleep duration with a 22% higher risk [OR, 1.22; 95%CI: 1.12–1.33; I 2 = 6.9%; P < 0.001]. Insomnia symptoms [OR, 1.11; 95%CI: 1.07–1.16; I 2 = 0%; P < 0.001] and evening chronotype [OR, 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05–1.26; P = 0.002] were all related to a higher risk of lung cancer. Egger’s test revealed no publication bias for sleep duration ( P = 0.13). Discussion This systematic review is the first one which observes positive correction between sleep disturbances and the incidence of lung cancer. While the plausible mechanism is not clear, it is hypothesized that the association of short sleep duration and lung cancer mainly mediated by melatonin secretion and the immune-inflammatory balance. Further studies are needed to examine whether other risk factors, such as age, occupation, cumulative effect of sleep disturbances might mediate the relationship between sleep disturbances and lung cancer risk. Conclusion The present study revealed that insufficient and excessive sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and evening chronotype were significantly predictive of an increased risk of lung cancer. This finding underscores the need to account for sleep disturbances as an independent risk factor for evaluating susceptibility to lung cancer. Trial registration CRD42023405351.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".