Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cell phone use and the risk of glioma: are case-control study findings consistent with Canadian time trends in cancer incidence?

Villeneuve, Paul J., Momoli, Franco, Parent, Marie-Élise, Siemiatycki, Jack, Turner, Michelle C., Krewski, Daniel·2021·Environmental Research
DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111283
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background There remains controversy as to whether cell phones cause cancer. We evaluated whether temporal changes in cell phone use and the incidence of glioma in Canada were consistent with the hypothesis of an increased risk. Design We used data from the Canadian Cancer Registry to calculate annual incidence rates for glioma between 1992 and 2015. The annual number of new cell phone subscribers was determined using national industry statistics. The number of newly diagnosed gliomas was compared to the predicted number by applying risks from epidemiological studies to age-specific population estimates. Specifically, we calculated the "predicted" number of incident gliomas by determining the annual prevalence of cell phone users and years of use. These estimates were multiplied by the corresponding risk estimates to determine the predicted number of gliomas. Results The number of cellular subscriptions in Canada increased from nil in the early-1980s to approximately 29.5 million in 2015. In contrast, age-standardized glioma incidence rates remained stable between 1992 and 2015. When applying risk estimates from i) a recent pooled analysis of Swedish case-control studies, ii) the 13 country INTERPHONE study, and iii) more recent results from data collected from the Canadian component of the INTERPHONE these risks overestimated the observed number of glioma cases diagnosed in Canada in 2015 by 50%, 86%, and 63%, respectively. Interpretation Predictions of glioma incidence coun…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111283

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 2013, Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [includes mobile telephones], vol. 102
  2. Selvin, 2004, Chapter 9:the analysis of count data: Poisson model
  3. 2017, vol. 2017

Cited by

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Villeneuve, P. J., Momoli, F., Parent, M.-É., Siemiatycki, J., Turner, M. C., & Krewski, D.
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
200
Pages
111283
ISSN
0013-9351
DOI
10.1016/j.envres.2021.111283
Cited by
16
References
36
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RYC-2017-01892)
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
  • European Social Fund
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.