RF Safe

Letter to the Editor concerning the paper "A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation"

2018 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 2002

The authors describe the EMF-Portal database and note that due to reduced funding they temporarily stopped reviewing/uploading new radiofrequency/mobile communications articles, while extremely low frequency field papers (<10 MHz) continued to be imported; la…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018
Study typepolicy
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Letter to the Editor concerning the paper "A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation" Drießen S, Dechent D, Graefrath D, Petri A-K, Bodewein L, Emonds T, Kraus T. Letter to the Editor concerning the paper "A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation." Reviews on Environmental Health. Oct 11, 2018. doi.org Excerpts Over the past decade my colleagues and I have provided the EMF-Portal, a database on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, launched by RWTH Aachen University, Germany. Today, the database of the EMF-Portal consists of more than 27,000 scientific publications, and the number is growing every day. The World Health Organization has also honored our EMF platform for many years and recommends it as a reference database. Over the last 10 years, the EMF-Portal was mainly funded by German institutions, in spite of the fact that about 80% of our users are from other countries. However, because the debate in Germany about electromagnetic fields in the radiofrequency area has greatly decreased, we no longer have the same financial resources at our disposal as in previous years. As a result, we had to stop reviewing and uploading new articles about radiofrequency and mobile communications. Papers on biological effects caused by extremely low frequency fields (<10 MHz) have never been affected by this decision and have been continuously imported into the EMF- Portal. All this information is available on our homepage. In the meantime, thanks to the financial support of our valuable users, we were able once again, to import articles from the radiofrequency range into the EMF-Portal (up to April 30, 2018). We hope to find a solution that allows for this service to continue past this date. In addition, we would like to make a comment about the "effect/no effect" feature in the ORSAA database presented by the authors. According to Table 2 in their article, every study is indicated as an "effect study" if an observed change of status occurred in one or more parameters examined. Thus, as an example, the study by Sommer et al. (2) on lymphoma development is counted as an "effect study", because the body weight of the investigated animals increased, although survival rate and lymphoma incidence did not differ between exposed mice and mice in the control group. In our opinion, such a global categorization biases studies towards an "effect study" classification although the main outcome was "no effect". Results of this analysis, as presented in their article, where 3 times more biological "Effect" than "No Effect" papers have been identified, might rather indicate this strong bias. For us, this is a real shortcoming in a self-declared non-biased database. To prevent such a bias and to promote a critical and differentiated discussion, we have decided not to offer such a feature in the EMF-Portal. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typepolicy
Effect directionunclear
PopulationNot supplied
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The authors describe the EMF-Portal database and note that due to reduced funding they temporarily stopped reviewing/uploading new radiofrequency/mobile communications articles, while extremely low frequency field papers (<10 MHz) continued to be imported; later, RF-range articles were again imported up to April 30, 2018. They argue that ORSAA’s global “effect/no effect” categorization can bias studies toward being labeled as “effect” even when the main outcome is no effect, and therefore EMF-Portal does not offer such a feature.

Outcomes measured

  • Database curation/classification of EMF bioeffects studies
  • Potential bias in effect vs no-effect labeling in ORSAA database
  • Coverage/funding status of EMF-Portal database (RF vs ELF imports)

Limitations

  • Letter to the editor/commentary rather than an original empirical study
  • No quantitative re-analysis presented in the excerpt
  • No specific exposure parameters or health endpoints systematically evaluated
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Database curation/classification of EMF bioeffects studies",
    "Potential bias in effect vs no-effect labeling in ORSAA database",
    "Coverage/funding status of EMF-Portal database (RF vs ELF imports)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The authors describe the EMF-Portal database and note that due to reduced funding they temporarily stopped reviewing/uploading new radiofrequency/mobile communications articles, while extremely low frequency field papers (<10 MHz) continued to be imported; later, RF-range articles were again imported up to April 30, 2018. They argue that ORSAA’s global “effect/no effect” categorization can bias studies toward being labeled as “effect” even when the main outcome is no effect, and therefore EMF-Portal does not offer such a feature.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Letter to the editor/commentary rather than an original empirical study",
    "No quantitative re-analysis presented in the excerpt",
    "No specific exposure parameters or health endpoints systematically evaluated"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "EMF-Portal",
    "ORSAA database",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "radiofrequency",
    "mobile communications",
    "extremely low frequency",
    "database bias",
    "effect/no effect classification",
    "World Health Organization"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Mentions WHO recognition/recommendation of the EMF-Portal as a reference database."
    }
  ]
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2018-0056
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library