Uncertainty in the relation between exposure to magnetic fields and brain cancer due to assessment and assignment of exposure and analytical methods in dose-response modeling

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 895, Issue , 1999, Pages 141-155

  Kromhout, Hans ^a   Loomis, Dana P ^b   Kleckner, Robert C ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b IL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN CANCER; CONFERENCE PAPER; DOSE RESPONSE; ELECTRIC POWER PLANT; HUMAN; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033451495     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08082.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. 1. Hawkins, N.C., S.K. Norwood & J.C. Rock, Eds. 1991. A Strategy for Occupational Exposure Assessment. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Akron, Ohio, USA.
2. 2. Kromhout, H., E. Symanski & S.M. Rappaport. 1993. A comprehensive evaluation of within-and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 37: 253-270.
3. 3. Rappaport, S.M., H. Kromhout & E. Symanski. 1993. Variation of exposure between workers in homogeneous exposure groups. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 54: 654-662.
4. 4. Kromhout, H. & D. Heederik. 1995. Occupational epidemiology in the rubber industry. Implications of exposure variability. Am. J. Ind. Med. 27: 171-185.
5. 5. Kromhout, H., E. Tielemans, L. Preller & D. Heederik. 1996. Estimates of individual dose from current measurements of exposure. Occup. Hyg. 3: 23-29.
6. 6. Tielemans, E., L.L. Kupper, H. Kromhout, D. Heederik & R. Houba. 1998. Individual-based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 42: 115-119.
7. 7. Savitz, D.A. & D.P. Loomis. 1995. Magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among electric utility workers. Am. J. Epidemiol. 141: 123-134.
8. 8. Gardiner, K., N.W. Trethowan, J.M. Harrington, C.E. Rossiter & I.A. Calvert. 1993. Respiratory health effects of carbon black: a survey of European carbon black workers. Br. J. Ind. Med. 50: 1082-1096.
9. 9. Kromhout, H., D.P. Loomis, R.C. R.C. Kleckner & D.A. Savitz. 1997. Sensitivity of the relationship between cumulative magnetic field exposure and brain cancer mortality to choice of grouping scheme. Epidemiology 8: 442-445.
10. 10. van Tongeren, M., K. Gardiner, I. Calvert, H. Kromhout & J.M. Harrington. 1997. Efficiency of different grouping schemes for dust exposure in the European carbon black respiratory morbidity study. Occup. Environ. Med. 54: 714-719.
11. 11. Rappaport, S.M. 1991. Selection of the measures of exposure for epidemiology studies. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 6: 448-457.
12. 12. Smith, T.J. 1992. Occupational exposure and dose over time: limitations of cumulative exposure. Am. J. Ind. Med. 21: 35-51.
13. 13. Johnson, E.S. 1986. Duration of exposure as a surrogate for dose in the examination of dose-response relations. Br. J. Ind. Med. 43: 427-429.
14. 14. Checkoway, H. &C. Rice. 1992. Time-weighted averages, peaks, and other indices of exposure in occupational epidemiology. Am. J. Ind. Med. 21: 25-33.
15. 15. Kriebel, D. 1994. The dosimetric model in epidemiology. Occup. Hyg. 1: 55-68.
16. 16. Seixas, N.S., T.G. Robins & M. Becker. 1993. A novel approach to the characterization of cumulative exposure for the study of chronic occupational disease. Am. J. Epidemiol. 137: 463-471.
17. 17. Vacek, P.M. & J.C. McDonald. 1991. Risk assessment using exposure intensity: an application to vermiculite mining. Br. J. Ind. Med. 48: 543-547.
18. 18. Kriebel, D. 1994. Cumulative exposure: conditions for its use as a robust estimator of exposure in occupational epidemiology. Presented at the Conference on Retrospective Assessment of Occupational Exposures in Epidemiology. Lyon, France, 13-15 April, 1994.
19. 19. Finkelstein, M.M. 1995. Potential pitfall in using cumulative exposure in exposure-response relationships: demonstration and discussion. Am. J. Ind. Med. 28: 41-47.
20. 20. Greenland, S. 1995. Dose-response and trend analysis in epidemiology: alternatives to categorical analysis. Epidemiology 6: 356-365.
21. 21. Flegal, K.M., P.M. Keyl & F.J. Nieto. 1991. Differential misclassification arising from nondifferential errors in exposure measurement. Am. J. Epidemiol. 134: 1233-1244.
22. 22. Brenner, H. & O.P. Loomis. 1994. Varied forms of bias due to nondifferential error in measuring exposure. Epidemiology 5: 510-517.
23. 23. Rothman, K.J. 1981. Induction and latent periods. Am. J. Epidemiol. 114: 253-259.
24. 24. Checkoway, H., N. Pearce, J.L.S. Hickey & J.M. Dement. 1990. Latency analysis in occupational epidemiology. J. Occup. Med. 45: 95-100.
25. 25. Pearce, N. 1988. Multistage modelling of lung cancer mortality in asbestos textile workers. Int. J. Epidemiol. 17: 747-752.
26. 26. Salvan, A., L. Stayner, K. Steenland & R. Smith. 1995. Selecting an exposure lag period. Epidemiology 6: 387-390.
27. 27. Loomis, D.P., H. Kromhout, L.A. Peipins, R.C. Kleckner, R. Iriye & D.A. Savitz. 1994. Sampling design and methods of a large, randomized, multi-site survey of occupational magnetic field exposure. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9: 49-52.
28. 28. Kromhout, H., D.P. Loomis, G.J. Mihlan, L.A. Peipins, R.C. Kleckner, R. Iriye & D.A. Savitz. 1995. Assessment and grouping of occupational magnetic field exposure in five electric utility companies. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 21: 43-50.
29. 29. Loomis, D.P., H. Kromhout, R.C. Kleckner & D.A. Savitz. 1998. Effects of the analytical treatment of exposure data on associations of cancer and occupational magnetic field exposure. Am. J. Ind. Med. 34: 49-56.
30. 30. Greenland, S. 1990. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology 1: 421-429.
31. 31. Greenland, S. 1996. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. Int. J. Epidemiol. 25: 1107-1116.