Cited by 20Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementHealth disparities and outcomesHealthcare Systems and Public Health

The “double jeopardy” of midlife and old age mortality trends in the United States

Open access
Abrams, Leah R., Myrskylä, Mikko, Mehta, Neil K.·2023·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Since 2010, US life expectancy growth has stagnated. Much research on US mortality has focused on working-age adults given adverse trends in drug overdose deaths, other external causes of death, and cardiometabolic deaths in midlife. We show that the adverse mortality trend at retirement ages (65+ y) has in fact been more consequential to the US life expectancy stagnation since 2010, as well as excess deaths and years of life lost in 2019, than adverse mortality trends at working ages. These results reveal that the United States is experiencing a “double jeopardy” that is driven by both mid-life and older-age mortality trends, but more so by older-age mortality. Understanding and addressing the causes behind the worsening mortality trend in older ages will be essential to returning to the pace of life expectancy improvements that the United States had experienced for decades.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2308360120

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abrams, L. R., Myrskylä, M., & Mehta, N. K.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Corresponding author
  • Abrams, Leah R.
  • Myrskylä, Mikko
  • Mehta, Neil K.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2023-10-09
Volume
120
Issue
42
Pages
e2308360120-e2308360120
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W4387448477
Cited by
20
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11
FWCI
11.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute on Aging (R24AG045061 30917-05467-S24, R01AG075208 P30AG024832, R01AG075208)
  • AKA | Strategic Research Council (345130 345131)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Healthcare Systems and Public Health
Keywords
mortality trends, older adults, midlife mortality, retirement age, excess mortality, years of life lost, drug overdose deaths, external causes of death, United States
MeSH terms
Adult, Cause of Death, Humans, Life Expectancy, Mortality, Retirement, United States, Ethical Theory, Drug Overdose

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