The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluating the performance of the lee-carter method for forecasting mortality
Abstract
Lee and Carter (LC) published a new statistical method for forecasting mortality in 1992. This paper examines its actual and hypothetical forecast errors, and compares them with Social Security forecast errors. Hypothetical historical projections suggest that LC tended to underproject gains, but by less than did Social Security. True e0 was within the ex ante 95% probability interval 97% of the time overall, but intervals were too broad up to 40 years and too narrow after 50 years. Projections to 1998 made after 1945 always contain errors of less than two years. Hypothetical projections for France, Sweden, Japan, and Canada would have done well. Changing age patterns of mortality decline over the century pose problems for the method.
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
Cited by
Trends in the Health of the Elderly
Crimmins, E. M. (2004) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.102802.124401 · Cited by 319
The relationship between unemployment and fertility in Italy: A time-series analysis
Cazzola, A., Pasquini, L., & Angeli, A. (2016) · Demographic Research · doi:10.4054/demres.2016.34.1 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, R., & Miller, T.
- Venue
- Demography
- Publisher
- Duke University Press
- Published
- 2001-11-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 537-549
- ISSN
- 0070-3370 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-7790
- OpenAlex
- W1964411117
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
