Erren Thomas C, Morfeld Peter
Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research, UNIKLINIK KÖLN, University of Cologne, Lindenthal, Germany.
Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34(4):282-6.
With their 2007 classification - shift work involving "circadian disruption" is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) - the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] provided a riddle for scientists and the public alike. Thereafter, eighteen epidemiological investigations into shift work and a host of malignant endpoints (including cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, colon, rectum, pancreas, bladder, skin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]) as well as mortality were published. Although IARC experts identified "circadian disruption" as the critical link in the "probable" chains of cancer causation, almost none of the post-IARC studies specifically considered a disturbed temporal organization of biology. This implies that epidemiological research to-date is less focused than it should be. To illustrate a potential chronobiological fallacy of past studies, we offer a thought experiment. In addition, we consider first empirical evidence from recent research which avoided such bias. Methodological perspectives for future chronobiology-driven epidemiological research are outlined.
国际癌症研究机构（IARC）在其2007年的分类中指出——涉及“昼夜节律紊乱”的轮班工作可能对人类致癌（2A组）——这给科学家和公众都带来了一个谜题。此后，发表了18项关于轮班工作与一系列恶性终点（包括乳腺癌、前列腺癌、肺癌、结肠癌、直肠癌、胰腺癌、膀胱癌、皮肤癌和非霍奇金淋巴瘤[NHL]）以及死亡率的流行病学调查。尽管IARC专家将“昼夜节律紊乱”确定为癌症因果关系“可能”链条中的关键环节，但几乎没有一项IARC之后的研究专门考虑生物时间组织的紊乱。这意味着迄今为止的流行病学研究关注程度不够。为了说明过去研究中可能存在的生物钟学谬误，我们提供一个思维实验。此外，我们首先考虑近期研究中避免了此类偏差的实证证据。概述了未来由生物钟学驱动的流行病学研究的方法论观点。
