The Associations Between Shift Work Exposure and Selected Health Outcomes Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults, Results from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in a globalized 24-hour society, consuming services, products and entertainment around the clock. As a result, more and more people are working in shifts. Currently, one in every four Canadians is working in shifts other than regular daytime hours. At the same time, the working population is aging and are becoming more common in most developed nations, including Canada. Together with physiological and epidemiological data on the alarming relationships between shift work and various physical, social and mental health outcomes, there is reason to believe that shift work may become a major occupational health problem in the near future. This dissertation analyzed data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) and investigated the associations between shift work and three specific outcomes related to health of middle-aged and older adults, specifically variations in age at natural menopause, frailty and cognitive impairment. The primary exposure, shift work, was measured using three derived variables: ever exposed to shift work, shift work exposure in current job, and shift work exposure in longest job. Multivariable analysis revealed that exposure to shift work is significantly related to adverse health outcomes among middle-aged and older adults. These findings highlight how shift work affects the health of the aging labor force. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of taking modifiable risk factors like shift work into account when developing and implementing health interventions in old age. It is believed that shift work, through circadian misalignment and melatonin suppression, interfere with human homeostasis and wellbeing, however, further research is needed to confirm this.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".