MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414470296 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1668848

Association between night shift work and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4414470296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiafei Xi, W.C. Ma, Yanmin Tao, Linfeng Liu, Hongyan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Work (physics)Shift workNight workMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Shift work, particularly night shift work, has become increasingly prevalent on a global scale and is associated with multiple health issues including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). This study aimed to assess the relationship between night shift work and the incidence and mortality of CVD. Method: Six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched from inception until August 10, 2025. Cohort studies eligible for inclusion addressed the association between night shift work and outcomes of CVD. STATA 18.0 software was used for meta-analysis. The dose-response relationship was estimated using generalized least squares regression, and restricted cubic splines were used to analyze potential linear or nonlinear associations. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Results: Twenty-three cohort studies were included. Overall, this meta-analysis revealed that night shift work significantly increased the risk of total CVD events (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10-1.16) and total CVD mortality (RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.18-1.36). Dose-response analysis indicated that each 5-year increment in shift work duration was associated with a 7% higher risk of CVD incidence (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04-1.09) and a 4% increased risk of CVD mortality (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06). Subgroup analyses identified elevated risks for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.16-1.28) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14), but not stroke (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.95-1.18), and night shift work was associated with an increased risk of mortality due to CHD (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.10-1.36), IHD (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.06-1.84), and stroke (RR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.04-2.12). Conclusion: These findings indicate that night shift work is significantly associated with increased CVD incidence and mortality risk, highlighting the need for targeted prevention strategies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251060086. CRD: 420251060086.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207