The relationship between the morningness-eveningness questionnaire and incident cancer: A historical clinical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to explore the relationship between chronotype measured by the total Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) score and incident cancer. METHODS: We used clinical and provincial health administrative data on consecutive adults who underwent a Level 1 Polysomnography (PSG) and completed the MEQ between 2010 and 2015 in an academic hospital (Ontario, Canada) and were cancer-free at baseline. Cancer status was derived from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Individuals were followed until death or March 31, 2020. We used multivariable Cox cause-specific regressions to address the research objective. RESULTS: Of 3,004 individuals, 1,781 were analyzed: a median age of 54 years (IQR: 40-64) and 838 (47.1%) men. The median total MEQ score was 63 (IQR: 55-69); 61 (3.4%) were classified as evening (≤41), 536 (30.1%) as intermediate (42-58), and 1,184 (66.5%) as morning chronotypes (≥59). Over a median of 7 years (IQR: 5-8), 120 (6.7%) developed cancer. A U-shape relationship was found between the total MEQ score and an increased hazard of incident cancer, controlling for PSG measures of sleep apnea severity and sleep architecture, demographics, and comorbidities. Compared to the median of 63.0, a total MEQ score greater or less than the median was associated with an increased hazard of incident cancer, with the largest effect for those with a total score ≥76 (e.g., HR of a MEQ total score of 78 vs. 63: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.09-3.71). CONCLUSION: The U-shaped curve may reflect deviations from a standard circadian tendency, which may stress biological systems and influence malignancy 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".