MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400345281 · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqae023.1287

O-346 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO LONG-WORKING HOURS AND STROKE SUBTYPES IN THE CONSTANCES COHORT

2024· article· en· W4400345281 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Fadel, Grace Sembajwe, Li J, Annette Leclerc, Fernando Pico, Yves Roquelaure, Alexis Descatha

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersÉcole des Hautes Études en Santé PubliqueInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)CohortOdds ratioInternal medicineLogistic regressionCohort studyDiseaseRisk factorPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Long working hours (LWH) was suggested to be associated with stroke in recent studies, though few have distinguished stroke subtypes even though physiopathological mechanisms are different. We examined the associations between LWH and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke while adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. Methods Using data from the French cohort CONSTANCES including participants from 2012 to 2018, we retrieved sociodemographic and cardiovascular risk factors from baseline questionnaires and initial health examinations. LWH were defined as self-reported working time ≥10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. Incident cases of stroke were collected using International Classification of Disease codes recorded in the National health data system. Multinomial logistic models were computed to assess associations between LWH and stroke while adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. Results There were 160,751 participants who were free from stroke at baseline, among which exposure to LWH ≥10 years was reported by 20,723 participants, and 190 incident cases of stroke, including 134 ischemic and 56 hemorrhagic. Exposure to LWH was associated with an elevated odds of ischemic stroke [OR=1.61(1.04-2.49)] and hemorrhagic stroke [OR=2.50(1.38-4.53)] in unadjusted model, whereas in adjusted models, only the LWH association with hemorrhagic stroke remained significant [aOR=1.92(1.01-3.09)]. Conclusions As reported in the literature, workers exposed to LWH had an increased risk of stroke, though it only remained significant for hemorrhagic stroke after adjustments. Differences in direct and indirect biological pathways and lack of power in the ischemic subgroup may explain these results. Further studies on the impact of mediating and effect measure modifying factors are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational MedicineSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207