RF Safe

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic field and breast cancer risk in a large, population-based, case-control study in the United States.

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2007 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 5074

Compared with background EMF exposure, adjusted odds ratios for breast cancer were 1.06 (95% CI 0.99–1.14) for low exposure, 1.09 (95% CI 0.96–1.23) for medium exposure, and 1.16 (95% CI 0.90–1.50) for high exposure.

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2007
Study typecase_control
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate women who were occupationally exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and breast cancer risk. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (n=6213) and randomly selected age-matched control subjects (n=7390) provided breast cancer risk factor information and occupational history. A qualified industrial hygienist classified each job for EMF exposure as background, low, medium, or high. RESULTS: When compared with the referent of background exposure, the odds ratio adjusted for age and state of residence was 1.06 (95% CI=0.99-1.14) for low exposure, 1.09 (95% CI=0.96-1.23) for medium exposure, and 1.16 (95% CI=0.90-1.50) for high exposure. CONCLUSION: Our findings, taken together with previous epidemiological studies, suggest that exposure to EMF in the workplace may be associated with a slight elevation in breast cancer risk.

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 typecase_control
Effect directionunclear
PopulationWomen in the United States (breast cancer cases and age-matched controls)
Sample size13603
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Compared with background EMF exposure, adjusted odds ratios for breast cancer were 1.06 (95% CI 0.99–1.14) for low exposure, 1.09 (95% CI 0.96–1.23) for medium exposure, and 1.16 (95% CI 0.90–1.50) for high exposure.

Outcomes measured

  • Breast cancer risk

Limitations

  • EMF exposure was assigned by an industrial hygienist based on job classification (potential exposure misclassification).
  • Confidence intervals for all exposure categories include 1.0, including the highest exposure group.
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "case_control",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "occupational",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Women in the United States (breast cancer cases and age-matched controls)",
  "sample_size": 13603,
  "outcomes": [
    "Breast cancer risk"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Compared with background EMF exposure, adjusted odds ratios for breast cancer were 1.06 (95% CI 0.99–1.14) for low exposure, 1.09 (95% CI 0.96–1.23) for medium exposure, and 1.16 (95% CI 0.90–1.50) for high exposure.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "EMF exposure was assigned by an industrial hygienist based on job classification (potential exposure misclassification).",
    "Confidence intervals for all exposure categories include 1.0, including the highest exposure group."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "occupational exposure",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "breast cancer",
    "case-control",
    "industrial hygienist",
    "job exposure classification"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Study evaluates workplace EMF exposure categories and breast cancer risk in a population-based case-control design."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1097/jom.0b013e318032259b
PubMed: 17351512

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library