ArticleEpidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Interpretation of Epidemiological Studies on the Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer.
Article in Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn May 2011 the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen mainly based on epidemiological studies about the association between mobile phone (MP) use and brain tumors. Considering that brain tumors have long latencies of around 30 years, it is unlikely that this association is due to an 'initiating' activity of MPs since virtually all studied brain tumor cases must have had already a covertly growing tumor when they started MP use. But there could be other adverse effects exerted by a MP when acting on later stages of malignant development. We propose that MP use acts adversely by increasing tumor growth rate and model it by an impact on the latency distribution shifting the age-incidence function to younger age.
methodsWe calculate (1) relative risks (RRs) for MP use in comparison to the meta-analytic RR estimate for glioma in adults; (2) RRs for neuroepithelial childhood brain tumors in comparison to the findings of the MOBIkids study; and (3) hazard ratios in comparison to the results of the Million Women Study (MWS).
resultsThe meta-analytical odds ratio for glioma and long-term MP use in adults of 1.22 (95% confidence-interval: 1.02-1.46) could be explained by a shift in the age-incidence function by 32% of MP usage duration. Applying a 20% shift for childhood neuroepithelial brain tumors reproduced the ORs that were predominantly less than 1 in the MOBIkids study. For glioma risk in perimenopausal women in relation to long-term MP use in the MWS we found hazard-ratios close to 1 applying a 32% shift in the age-incidence function.
conclusionsThe standard interpretation of relative risk estimates must be revised if exposure to the agent commenced after the malignant development has already started. All reported RR estimates of MP use can be reproduced by positing MP use increased tumor growth rate. However, since these results are obtained applying a modeling approach, further tests using epidemiological methods, which will be difficult or hardly feasible, or utilizing more promising laboratory methods are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.