MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6983494833

Mortality of Americans Age 65 and Older: 1980 to 2004

2007· report· en· W6983494833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2007
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyLongevityMortality rateQuarter (Canadian coin)Age groupsDiseasePopulationCause of death
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→