Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17236538›Full record

ArticleDemography2006

Sex mortality differences in the United States: the role of cohort smoking patterns.

Samuel H Preston, Haidong Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Demography, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

127 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Insights into US life expectancy stagnation from birth cohort mortality dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cohort Differences in Physical Health and Disability in the United States and Europe.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Past or Present; Which Exposures Predict Metabolomic Aging Better? The Doetinchem Cohort Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The underwhelming German life expectancy.European journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article

67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Samuel H PrestonPopulation Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia 19104, USA. spreston@sas.upenn.edu
Haidong Wang

Funding

STATISTICAL DATA ENCLAVE COREP30AG012836 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KOHLER, HANS-PETER · 1999 to 2024
$14.0M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012836NIA NIH HHS P30 AG12836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article demonstrates that over the period 1948-2003, sex differences in mortality in the age range 50-84 widened and then narrowed on a cohort basis rather than on a period basis. The cohort with the maximum excess of male mortality was born shortly after the turn of the century. Three separate data sources suggest that the turnaround in sex mortality differences is consistent with sex differences in cigarette smoking by cohort. An age-period-cohort model reveals a highly significant effect of smoking histories on men's and women's mortality. Combined with recent changes in smoking patterns, the model suggests that sex differences in mortality will narrow dramatically in coming decades.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorRisk-TakingAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedMortalityPrevalenceRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSex FactorsSmoking

Identifiers

PMID17236538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.