Lifetime stress at work and risk of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosocial factors may play a role in cancer aetiology. Potential mechanisms proposed include an alteration of the immune function and/or of \nhormone levels. Several studies have suggested a link between stress and \nbreast cancer risk. Hardly any evidence exists for other cancer types. Prostate cancer is thought to be influenced, at least in part, by environmental \ncircumstances modulating hormone levels. We report here on the association between lifelong stress at work and prostate cancer risk in the context \nof a case-control study involving 973 incident, pathology confirmed prostate cancer cases and 1,087 population controls in Montreal, Canada. As \npart of in-person interviews, subjects were asked to provide a detailed description of each job held over their lifetime, including specific tasks, and \nwere asked to indicate whether these jobs made them feel tense, anxious or \nstressed. Regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% \nconfidence intervals (CI) associated with stress at work, while adjusting for \nage, ethnicity, first-degree family history of prostate cancer and education. \nCompared to men reporting no work-related stress, the OR among those \nwho did increased with longer cumulative durations of work-related stress \n(p for trend = 0.023). The ORs for prostate cancer according to the duration of work-related stress were: OR(1-10 years) = 1.12, 95%CI 0.81-1.54; \nOR(11-20 years) = 1.17, 95%CI 0.87-1.58; OR(21-30 years) = 1.32, \n95%CI 1.00-1.74; OR(more than 30 years) = 1.29, 95%CI 1.02-1.64. \nResults remained unaltered when income, smoking, alcohol intake and \nbody mass index were accounted for. Our findings of an association between work-related stress and prostate cancer are largely novel and require \nreplication in other studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".