The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mortality Modelling and Forecasting: a Review of Methods
Open accessAbstract
Continuing increases in life expectancy beyond previously-held limits have brought to the fore the critical importance of mortality forecasting. Significant developments in mortality forecasting since 1980 are reviewed under three broad approaches: expectation, extrapolation and explanation. Expectation is not generally a good basis for mortality forecasting, as it is subjective; expert expectations are invariably conservative. Explanation is restricted to certain causes of death with known determinants. Decomposition by cause of death poses problems associated with the lack of independence among causes and data difficulties. Most developments have been in extrapolative forecasting, and make use of statistical methods rather than models developed primarily for age-specific graduation. Methods using two-factor models (age-period or age-cohort) have been most successful. The two-factor Lee–Carter method, and, in particular, its variants, have been successful in terms of accuracy, while recent advances have improved the estimation of forecast uncertainty. Regression-based (GLM) methods have been less successful, due to nonlinearities in time. Three-factor methods are more recent; the Lee–Carter age-period-cohort model appears promising. Specialised software has been developed and made available. Research needs include further comparative evaluations of methods in terms of the accuracy of the point forecast and its uncertainty, encompassing a wide range of mortality situations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies.
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2955359 · Cited by 8,598
Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study
Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)07495-8 · Cited by 4,492 · cited 2×
“The explanatory models developed under the WHO Global Burden of Disease Study have also been used in scenario forecasting (e.g. Murray & Lopez, 1997).”
Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter
Harvey, A. C. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107049994 · Cited by 4,195
Cited by
Applying and testing a forecasting model for age and sex patterns of immigration and emigration
Raymer, J., & Wiśniowski, A. (2018) · Population Studies · doi:10.1080/00324728.2018.1469784 · Cited by 26
Progress Stalled? The Uncertain Future of Mortality in High‐Income Countries
Dowd, J. B., Polizzi, A., & Tilstra, A. M. (2025) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12687 · Cited by 21
Short-term forecasts of expected deaths
Rizzi, S., & Vaupel, J. W. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2025324118 · Cited by 18
Minimum Death Rates and Maximum Life Expectancy: The Role of Concordant Ages
Canudas-Romo, V., Booth, H., & Bergeron-Boucher, M.-P. (2019) · North American Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/10920277.2018.1519448 · Cited by 12
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Booth, H., & Tickle, L.
- Venue
- Annals of Actuarial Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 3-43
- ISSN
- 1748-4995 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-5002
- OpenAlex
- W2050846110
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.