Modeling cause-of-death mortality using hierarchical Archimedean copula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying changes in cause-specific (or competing risks) mortality rates may provide significant insights for the insurance business as well as the pension systems, as they provide more information than the aggregate mortality data. However, the forecasting of cause-specific mortality rates requires new tools to capture the dependence among the competing causes. This paper introduces a class of hierarchical Archimedean copula (HAC) models for cause-specific mortality data. The approach extends the standard Archimedean copula models by allowing for asymmetric dependence among competing risks, while preserving closed-form expressions for mortality forecasts. Moreover, the HAC model allows for a convenient analysis of the impact of hypothetical reduction, or elimination, of mortality of one or more causes on the life expectancy. Using US cohort mortality data, we analyze the historical mortality patterns of different causes of death, provide an explanation for the ‘failure’ of the War on Cancer, and evaluate the impact on life expectancy of hypothetical scenarios where cancer mortality is reduced or eliminated. We find that accounting for longevity improvement across cohorts can alter the results found in existing studies that are focused on one single cohort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".