The Impact of Mobile Phone Use on Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinnitus is a perception of sound in the absence of an external source. The aim of our study was to investigate with a meta-analytical approach, whether mobile phone (MP) use increases the risk of tinnitus. Eight studies reporting the risk of tinnitus in relation to MP use were identified, and six high-quality studies (two cohort studies, one case-control study, and three cross-sectional ones) were included in the meta-analysis. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The risk of tinnitus was analyzed depending on the exposure to MPs in subgroups according to the study design and method of exposure assessment. Two cohort studies, which assessed the exposure to MPs using network operator data, indicated no significantly increased risk of tinnitus among highly exposed MP users in comparison to lightly exposed individuals (odds ratio [OR]: 1.03 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.15]). Likewise, the self-reported exposure data from two cohorts/case-control and four cross-sectional studies did not find an association between exposure to MPs and tinnitus (OR: 1.20 [95% CI: 0.40-3.61] and OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 0.67-4.49], respectively). Current scientific knowledge, including high-quality studies with a reliable exposure assessment based on network operator data, does not support the hypothesis that MP use is associated with tinnitus. © 2020 Bioelectromagnetics Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it