MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093538482 · doi:10.1080/09553000500091097

Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review

2005· review· en· W2093538482 on OpenAlexaff
J. E. Moulder, K.R. Foster, L.S. Erdreich, James P. McNamee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile phoneCancerMedicineComputer scienceBioelectromagneticsTelecommunicationsPhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been reports in the media and claims in the courts that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from mobile phones are a cause of cancer, and there have been numerous public objections to the siting of mobile phone base antennas because of a fear of cancer. This review summarizes the current state of evidence concerning whether the RF energy used for wireless communication might be carcinogenic. Relevant studies were identified by searching MedLine with a combination of exposure and endpoint terms. This was supplemented by a review of the over 1700 citations assembled by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety as part of their updating of the IEEE C95.1 RF energy safety guidelines. Where there were multiple studies, preference was given to recent reports, to positive reports of effects and to attempts to confirm such positive reports. Biophysical considerations indicate that there is little theoretical basis for anticipating that RF energy would have significant biological effects at the power levels used by modern mobile phones and their base station antennas. The epidemiological evidence for a causal association between cancer and RF energy is weak and limited. Animal studies have provided no consistent evidence that exposure to RF energy at non-thermal intensities causes or promotes cancer. Extensive in vitro studies have found no consistent evidence of genotoxic potential, but in vitro studies assessing the epigenetic potential of RF energy are limited. Overall, a weight-of-evidence evaluation shows that the current evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to RF energy is weak and unconvincing. However, the existing epidemiology is limited and the possibility of epigenetic effects has not been thoroughly evaluated, so that additional research in those areas will be required for a more thorough assessment of the possibility of a causal connection between cancer and the RF energy from mobile telecommunications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations174
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207