Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Use of Electric Blankets and Other In-Home Electrical Appliances and Breast Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from use of electric blankets and other in-home electrical appliances has been hypothesized to increase breast cancer risk. To test the hypothesis, the authors analyzed data from a case-control study of female breast cancer conducted in Connecticut in 1994-1997. A total of 608 incident breast cancer patients and 609 age frequency-matched controls, 31-85 years old, were interviewed by trained study interviewers using a standardized, structured questionnaire to obtain information on lifetime use of various in-home electrical appliances. A total of 40% of the cases and 43% of the controls reported regular use of electric blankets in their lifetime, which gave an adjusted odds ratio of 0.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7, 1.1). For those who reported using electric blankets continuously throughout the night, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.2) when compared with never users. The risk did not vary according to age at first use, duration of use, or menopausal and estrogen receptor status. The authors also did not find an association between use of other major in-home electrical appliances and breast cancer risk. In conclusion, exposure to EMFs from in-home electrical appliance use was not found to increase breast cancer risk in this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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".