RF Safe

Extremely Low Frequency Fields

2017 · Harm · Moderate evidence

← Research stream
HarmModerate evidencePaper 2182

In a prospective cohort of 913 pregnant women, higher magnetic field (MF) exposure was associated with increased miscarriage risk after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.72, 95% CI 1.42–5.19) compared with lower MF exposure. The increased risk was reported as consis…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017
Study typecohort
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Extremely Low Frequency Fields Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study Li DK, Chen H, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry C. Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 13;7(1):17541. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017- 16623-8. Abstract Magnetic field (MF) non-ionizing radiation is widespread and everyone is exposed to some degree. This prospective cohort study of 913 pregnant women examined the association between high MF exposure and miscarriage risk. Cox (proportional hazards) regression was used to examine the association. After controlling for multiple other factors, women who were exposed to higher MF levels had 2.72 times the risk of miscarriage (hazard ratio = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.42-5.19) than those with lower MF exposure. The increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF was consistently observed regardless of the sources of high MF. The association was much stronger if MF was measured on a typical day of participants' pregnancies. The finding also demonstrated that accurate measurement of MF exposure is vital for examining MF health effects. This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health. Open Access Paper: 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 typecohort
Effect directionharm
PopulationPregnant women
Sample size913
ExposureELF
Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a prospective cohort of 913 pregnant women, higher magnetic field (MF) exposure was associated with increased miscarriage risk after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.72, 95% CI 1.42–5.19) compared with lower MF exposure. The increased risk was reported as consistent regardless of MF source and stronger when MF was measured on a typical day of pregnancy.

Outcomes measured

  • Miscarriage
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Pregnant women",
  "sample_size": 913,
  "outcomes": [
    "Miscarriage"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a prospective cohort of 913 pregnant women, higher magnetic field (MF) exposure was associated with increased miscarriage risk after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.72, 95% CI 1.42–5.19) compared with lower MF exposure. The increased risk was reported as consistent regardless of MF source and stronger when MF was measured on a typical day of pregnancy.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low frequency",
    "ELF",
    "magnetic field",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "pregnancy",
    "miscarriage",
    "prospective cohort",
    "Cox proportional hazards",
    "hazard ratio"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Human health effects study of non-ionizing (ELF magnetic field) exposure; potentially relevant to guideline discussions."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1038/s41598-017
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library