Validation of mobile phone use recall in the multinational MOBI‐kids study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potential differential and non-differential recall error in mobile phone use (MPU) in the multinational MOBI-Kids case-control study were evaluated. We compared self-reported MPU with network operator billing record data up to 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years before the interview date from 702 subjects aged between 10 and 24 years in eight countries. Spearman rank correlations, Kappa coefficients and geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were used. No material differences in MPU recall estimates between cases and controls were observed. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between self-reported and recorded MPU in the most recent 3 months were 0.57 and 0.59 for call number and for call duration, respectively. The number of calls was on average underestimated by the participants (GMR = 0.69), while the duration of calls was overestimated (GMR = 1.59). Country, years since start of using a mobile phone, age at time of interview, and sex did not appear to influence recall accuracy for either call number or call duration. A trend in recall error was seen with level of self-reported MPU, with underestimation of use at lower levels and overestimation of use at higher levels for both number and duration of calls. Although both systematic and random errors in self-reported MPU among participants were observed, there was no evidence of differential recall error between cases and controls. Nonetheless, these sources of exposure measurement error warrant consideration in interpretation of the MOBI-Kids case-control study results on the association between children's use of mobile phones and potential brain cancer risk.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".