ArticleDemography2017
Optimizing the Lee-Carter Approach in the Presence of Structural Changes in Time and Age Patterns of Mortality Improvements.
Article in Demography, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managing Mortality and Aging Risks with a Time-Varying Lee-Carter Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Smoothing, Decomposing and Forecasting Mortality Rates.European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers using the Lee-Carter approach have often assumed that the time-varying index evolves linearly and that the parameters describing the age pattern of mortality decline are time-invariant. However, as several empirical studies suggest, the two assumptions do not seem to hold when the calibration window begins too early. This problem gives rise to the question of identifying the longest calibration window for which the two assumptions hold true. To address this question, we contribute a likelihood ratio-based sequential test to jointly test whether the two assumptions are satisfied. Consistent with the mortality structural changes observed in previous studies, our testing procedure indicates that the starting points of the optimal calibration windows for most populations fall between 1960 and 1990. Using an out-of-sample analysis, we demonstrate that in most cases, models that are estimated to the optimized calibration windows result in more accurate forecasts than models that are fitted to all available data or data beyond 1950. We further apply the proposed testing procedure to data over different age ranges. We find that the optimal calibration windows for age group 0-49 are generally shorter than those for age group 50-89, indicating that mortality at younger ages might have undergone (another) structural change in recent years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28523453What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.