MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104203198 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1376

A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia

2000· article· en· W2104203198 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsRelative riskConfoundingChildhood leukaemiaMedicineDemographyEstimationRisk factorEnvironmental healthPediatricsConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested an association between exposure to 50-60 Hz magnetic fields (EMF) and childhood leukaemia. We conducted a pooled analysis based on individual records from nine studies, including the most recent ones. Studies with 24/48-hour magnetic field measurements or calculated magnetic fields were included. We specified which data analyses we planned to do and how to do them before we commenced the work. The use of individual records allowed us to use the same exposure definitions, and the large numbers of subjects enabled more precise estimation of risks at high exposure levels. For the 3203 children with leukaemia and 10 338 control children with estimated residential magnetic field exposures levels < 0.4 microT, we observed risk estimates near the no effect level, while for the 44 children with leukaemia and 62 control children with estimated residential magnetic field exposures >/= 0.4 microT the estimated summary relative risk was 2.00 (1.27-3.13), P value = 0.002). Adjustment for potential confounding variables did not appreciably change the results. For North American subjects whose residences were in the highest wire code category, the estimated summary relative risk was 1.24 (0.82-1.87). Thus, we found no evidence in the combined data for the existence of the so-called wire-code paradox. In summary, the 99.2% of children residing in homes with exposure levels < 0.4 microT had estimates compatible with no increased risk, while the 0.8% of children with exposures >/= 0.4 microT had a relative risk estimate of approximately 2, which is unlikely to be due to random variability. The explanation for the elevated risk is unknown, but selection bias may have accounted for some of the increase.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.219 · 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