Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 736

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia

Open access
Ahlbom, A, Day, N, Feychting, M, Roman, E, Skinner, J, Dockerty, J, Linet, M, McBride, M, Michaelis, J, Olsen, J H, Tynes, T, Verkasalo, P K·2000·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested an association between exposure to 50-60 Hz magnetic fields (EMF) and childhood leukaemia. We conducted a pooled analysis based on individual records from nine studies, including the most recent ones. Studies with 24/48-hour magnetic field measurements or calculated magnetic fields were included. We specified which data analyses we planned to do and how to do them before we commenced the work. The use of individual records allowed us to use the same exposure definitions, and the large numbers of subjects enabled more precise estimation of risks at high exposure levels. For the 3203 children with leukaemia and 10 338 control children with estimated residential magnetic field exposures levels < 0.4 microT, we observed risk estimates near the no effect level, while for the 44 children with leukaemia and 62 control children with estimated residential magnetic field exposures >/= 0.4 microT the estimated summary relative risk was 2.00 (1.27-3.13), P value = 0.002). Adjustment for potential confounding variables did not appreciably change the results. For North American subjects whose residences were in the highest wire code category, the estimated summary relative risk was 1.24 (0.82-1.87). Thus, we found no evidence in the combined data for the existence of the so-called wire-code paradox. In summary, the 99.2% of children residing in homes with exposure levels < 0.4 microT had estimates compatible with no increased risk, while the 0.8% of children with exposures >/= 0.4 microT had a relative risk estimate of approximately 2, which is unlikely to be due to random variability. The explanation for the elevated risk is unknown, but selection bias may have accounted for some of the increase.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1376

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 736

Metadata

Authors
Ahlbom, A., Day, N., Feychting, M., Roman, E., Skinner, J., Dockerty, J., Linet, M., McBride, M., Michaelis, J., Olsen, J. H., Tynes, T., & Verkasalo, P. K.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2000-09
Volume
83
Issue
5
Pages
692-698
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2104203198
Cited by
736
References
0
FWCI
19.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1376
The paper
Ahlbom, A., Day, N., Feychting, M., Roman, E., Skinner, J., Dockerty, J., Linet, M., McBride, M., Michaelis, J., Olsen, J. H., Tynes, T., & Verkasalo, P. K. (2000). A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1376

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.