MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indoor and outdoor artificial light-at-night (ALAN) and cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of multiple cancer sites and with a critical appraisal of exposure assessment

2024· review· en· W4403579345 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Palomar‐Cros, Andy Deprato, Kyriaki Papantoniou, Kurt Straíf, Paige Lacy, Robert Maidstone, Ana Adán, Prasun Haldar, Saibal Moitra, José Francisco Navarro, Hannah Durrington, Subhabrata Moitra, Manolis Kogevinas, Barbara N Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicImpact of Light on Environment and Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical appraisalMeta-analysisCancerEnvironmental healthMedicineInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to artificial light-at-night (ALAN) has been linked to cancer risk. Few meta-analyses on this topic have reviewed only breast cancer. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze existing studies on ALAN exposure and cancer incidence, thoroughly evaluating exposure assessment quality. We considered observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) on ALAN exposure (indoor and outdoor) and cancer incidence, measured by relative risk, hazard ratio, and odds ratio. We searched six databases, two registries, and Google Scholar from inception until April 17, 2024. Quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for ALAN exposures. We identified 9835 studies and included 28 for qualitative synthesis with 2,508,807 individuals (15 cohort, 13 case-control). Out of the included studies, 20 studies on breast cancer (731,493 individuals) and 2 studies on prostate cancer (53,254 individuals) were used for quantitative synthesis. Higher levels of outdoor ALAN were associated with breast cancer risk (meta-estimate = 1.12, 95 % CI 1.03–1.23 (I 2 = 69 %)). We observed a non-significant positive association between indoor ALAN levels and breast cancer risk (meta-estimate = 1.07, 0.95–1.21, I 2 = 60 %), and no differences by menopausal status. The meta-analysis for prostate cancer suggested a non-statistically significant increased risk for higher levels of outdoor ALAN (meta-estimate = 1.43, 0.75–2.72, I 2 = 90 %). In the qualitative synthesis, we observed positive associations with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and colorectal, pancreatic and thyroid cancer. We found an association between outdoor ALAN and breast cancer risk. However, most studies relied on satellite-images with a very low resolution (1 to 5 km, from the Defense Meteorological Program [DMSP]) and without information on color of light. Future studies with better exposure assessment should focus on investigating other cancer sites. • Exposure to artificial light-at-night (ALAN) has been linked to cancer. • Previous meta-analyses on breast cancer lack thorough exposure quality assessment. • Studies on outdoor ALAN and cancer generally used low-resolution images. • Suggested link between outdoor ALAN and prostate cancer, but evidence is limited. • Future studies should improve exposure assessment and explore other cancers sites.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total EnvironmentSame topicImpact of Light on Environment and HealthFrench-language works237,207