Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A forecasting method to reduce estimation bias in self-reported cell phone data

Abstract

There is ongoing concern that extended exposure to cell phone electromagnetic radiation could be related to an increased risk of negative health effects. Epidemiological studies seek to assess this risk, usually relying on participants’ recalled use, but recall is notoriously poor. Our objectives were primarily to produce a forecast method, for use by such studies, to reduce estimation bias in the recalled extent of cell phone use. The method we developed, using Bayes’ rule, is modelled with data we collected in a cross-sectional cluster survey exploring cell phone user-habits among New Zealand adolescents. Participants recalled their recent extent of SMS-texting and retrieved from their provider the current month's actual use-to-date. Actual use was taken as the gold standard in the analyses. Estimation bias arose from a large random error, as observed in all cell phone validation studies. We demonstrate that this seriously exaggerates upper-end forecasts of use when used in regression models. This means that calculations using a regression model will lead to underestimation of heavy-users’ relative risk. Our Bayesian method substantially reduces estimation bias. In cases where other studies’ data conforms to our method's requirements, application should reduce estimation bias, leading to a more accurate relative risk calculation for mid-to-heavy users.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mediamark Research & Intelligence. Kids Intelligence: Kids’ Cell Phone Ownership Has Dramatically Increased in Past Five Years. Mediamark Research & Intelligence, New York, 2010.

  2. World Health Organisation. WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields. WHO, Geneva, 2010.

  3. Cardis E., Richardson L., Deltour I., Armstrong B., Feychting M., and Johansen C., et al. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2010: 39: 675–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Christensen H.C., Schuz J., Kosteljanetz M., Skovgaard Poulsen H., Boice J.C., and McLaughlin J.K., et al. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 2005: 64: 1189–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hardell L., Carlberg M., and Hansson Mild K. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup Environ Med 2005: 62: 390–394.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hardell L., Carlberg M., Soderqvist F., Mild K.H., and Morgan L.L. Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years. Occup Environ Med 2007: 64: 626–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hepworth S.J., Schoemaker M.J., Muir K.R., Swerdlow A.J., and van Tongeren M.J., et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study. BMJ 2006: 332: 883–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lahkola A., Salminen T., Raitanen J., Heinavaara S., and Schoemaker M.J., et al. Meningioma and mobile phone use: a collaborative case-control study in five North European countries. Int J Epidemiol 2008: 37: 1304–1313.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Parslow R.C., Hepworth S.J., and McKinney P.A. Recall of past use of mobile phone handsets. Rad Prot Dos 2003: 106: 233–240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vrijheid M., Armstrong B., Bedard D., Brown J., and Deltour I., et al. Recall bias in the assessment of exposure to mobile phones. J Expo Sci Env Epid 2009: 19: 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vrijheid M., Cardis E., Armstrong B.K., Auvinen A., and Berg G., et al. Validation of short term recall of mobile phone use for the Interphone study. Occup Environ Med 2006a: 63: 237–243.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Aydin D., Feychting M.J.S., Andersen T.V., Poulsen A.H., Prochazka M., and Klaeboe L., et al. Impact of random and systematic recall errors and of selection bias in case-control studies on mobile phone use and brain tumours in adolescents (CEFALO study). Bioelectromagnetics 2011a: 32: 396–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Inyang I., Benke G., Morrissey J.J., McKenzie R.J., and Abramson M. How well do adolescents recall use of mobile telephones? Results of a validation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009: 9: 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vrijheid M., Deltour I., Krewski D., Sanchez M., and Cardis E. The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk. J Expo Sci Env Epid 2006b: 16: 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bland M., and Altman D. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Method Med Res 1999: 8: 135–160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Izard V., and Dehaene S. Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition 2008: 106: 1221–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jones G. Inverse regression from longitudinal data. 2010 JSM Proceedings, Biometrics Section. American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thomas D.C., Witte J.S., and Greenland S. Dissecting effects of complex mixtures: who's afraid of informative priors? Epidemiology 2007: 18: 186–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jarque C.M., and Bera A.K. A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. Int Stat Rev 1987: 55: 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brannon E.M. The representation of numerical magnitude. Cogn Neurosci 2006: 16: 222–229.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Krueger L.E. Perceived numerosity: a comparison of magnitude production, magnitude estimation, and discrimination judgments. Percept Psychophys 1984: 35: 536–542.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Feychting M. CEFALO – a case-control study of brain tumors in children and adolescents and mobile phone use. Epidemiology 2006: 17: S74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aydin D., Feychting M., Schuz J., Tynes T., Andersen T.V., and Schmidt L.S., et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case- control- study (CEFALO). J Natl Cancer Inst 2011b: 103: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Richard Arnold, statistician, VUW, for his advice during development of the forecast method. MR would like to thank the Dominion Post and Victoria University of Wellington for scholarship funding, and the school principals and students for their willing and often enthusiastic participation. We also thank the three reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions, improving the paper. Mary Redmayne and Euan Smith have no competing interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Redmayne.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Michael Abramson holds small parcels of shares in Telstra and SingTel, which operate cell telephone networks in Australia. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Redmayne, M., Smith, E. & Abramson, M. A forecasting method to reduce estimation bias in self-reported cell phone data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 23, 539–544 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2012.70

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2012.70

Keywords

Search

Quick links