Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between occupational exposures to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) and postmenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: Lifetime job histories from a population-based case-control study (2008 to 2011) of histologically confirmed breast cancer in Montréal, Canada, were linked to a job-exposure matrix to assign geometric mean ELF-MF exposure/workday. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for cumulative, average, maximum, and duration of maximum exposure to ELF-MFs (per interquartile range increase), adjusting for individual-level and ecological covariables. RESULTS: Data from 663 cases and 592 controls revealed no association between occupational ELF-MF exposure and postmenopausal breast cancer, though restricting exposures to 0 to 10 years before interview and to those during breast development, some positive associations was observed, particularly for ER+/PR+ tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest no association between occupational ELF-MF exposure and postmenopausal breast 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".