Occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk: <scp>Application</scp> of the <scp>INTEROCC</scp> job‐exposure matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF, 100 kHz to 300 GHz) are classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). This study evaluates the potential association between occupational RF-EMF exposure and brain tumor risk, utilizing for the first time, a RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (RF-JEM) developed in the multi-country INTEROCC case-control study. Cumulative and time-weighted average (TWA) occupational RF-EMF exposures were estimated for study participants based on lifetime job histories linked to the RF-JEM using three different methods: (1) by considering RF-EMF intensity among all exposed jobs, (2) by considering RF-EMF intensity among jobs with an exposure prevalence ≥ the median exposure prevalence of all exposed jobs, and (3) by considering RF-EMF intensity of jobs of participants who reported RF-EMF source use. Stratified conditional logistic regression models were used, considering various lag periods and exposure time windows defined a priori. Generally, no clear associations were found for glioma or meningioma risk. However, some statistically significant positive associations were observed including in the highest exposure categories for glioma for cumulative and TWA exposure in the 1- to 4-year time window for electric fields (E) in the first JEM application method (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.08, 1.72 and 1.27, 95% CI 1.01, 1.59, respectively), as well as for meningioma for cumulative exposure in the 5- to 9-year time window for electric fields (E) in the third JEM application method (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.11, 4.78). We did not identify convincing associations between occupational RF-EMF exposure and risk of glioma or meningioma.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".