Mortality of Americans Age 65 and Older: 1980 to 2004
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Individuals age 65 and older have experienced remarkable declines in mortality during the past 20 years.In 1980, 14.2% of newborns could expect to live to age 90; by 2003, this percentage increased nearly 50% to 20.9%.Average life expectancy went from 73.7 years in 1980 to 77.8 years in 2004 -about 30.5 years longer than the anticipated life expectancy for a baby born at the beginning of the 20 th century.Between 1930 and 2003, the proportion of older Americans who lived to age 65 increased by more than 50%, the percentage to reach age 75 nearly tripled, and the fraction to reach age 85 increased nearly sixfold.Greater longevity is one factor contributing to the quickly growing share of elderly Americans.In 1950, persons age 65 and older made up 8.1% of the population.In 2000, they accounted for 12.4% of the population; by 2030, one in five Americans is projected to be a senior citizen.In 2004, a total of 1.8 million deaths of people age 65 and older was reported in the United States; one-third lost their life to a heart condition, one-fifth to cancer.Nevertheless, the number of deaths attributable to cardiovascular disease has fallen by nearly one-third since 1980.Moreover, the death rate for heart disease in 2004 was 41.6% lower than in 1980.Similarly, the death rate for stroke declined by 48.2% during the last quarter century.These declines are attributable to a number of factors, including medical advances that facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions, the introduction of new pharmaceuticals, and important changes in lifestyle behaviors, including less cigarette smoking and changes in diet.This significant decrease, however, has been partially offset by an increase in cases of some chronic conditions among older Americans.In particular, since 1980, the share of elderly deaths resulting from kidney disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerosis, and chronic liver disease more than quadrupled (from 5.0% to 20.1%), and death rates for chronic lower respiratory diseases increased by 120%.Increases in mortality attributable to chronic illness have not been evenly distributed.Even among the elderly, death rates vary by age.Moreover, significant racial and ethnic disparities are evident, reflecting different disease profiles for underlying populations, unequal access to health care, and other sociodemographic factors, such as income and education.Diabetes has been particularly deadly among blacks and Native Americans, heart disease has disproportionately affected white men, and Alzheimer's has been especially detrimental to white women.As the population of older Americans grows and the cost of medical care increases, the public policy interest in identifying the predominant causes of death among the elderly becomes more acute.Given the concentration of medical expenditures at the end of life, and the fact that Medicare covers more than 95% of all Americans age 65 and older, understanding trends in mortality may inform policy makers as they tackle the many challenges associated with financing and delivering care to the nation's rapidly growing cohort of older Americans.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».