Long working hours at midlife and arterial stiffness at older age in a 24-year prospective cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: This study aims to examine whether long working hours, repeatedly assessed at midlife, is associated with higher arterial stiffness at older age in a 24-year prospective study of white-collar workers in Quebec City, Canada. METHODS: This study relied on a prospective cohort, initiated in 1991-1993 (T1) with two follow-ups after 8 years (T2, 1999-2001) and 24 years (T3, 2015-2018). Participants (N = 1,629, 51.3% women, mean age 37 ± 6.4 at T1) were randomly selected for arterial stiffness measurement at T3 using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Long working hours (> 40 h/week) were assessed at T1 and T2. Mean differences in PWV were estimated using generalized linear models, accounting for sociodemographic factors, lifestyle-related risk factors, clinical factors and psychosocial stressors at work. RESULTS: Among participants who remained actively employed over the study period (age range: 21-59 at T1), long working hours at T1 were associated with a + 0.54 m/s (95% CI: 0.05; 1.02) increase in PWV, while repeated exposure at T1 and T2 was associated with a + 1.50 m/s (95% CI: 0.78; 2.21) increase. No association was observed among participants who retired between T2 and T3. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that exposure to long working hours during midlife is associated with higher arterial stiffness, among aging workers. Workplace preventive strategies reducing long working hours may be effective to mitigate long-term arterial stiffening.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".