3 ms·
I read through the methods, and didn't see any attempt to correct for changes in the age composition of the population ranges. From my minimal familiarity with
by hyperpape 8y ago
I read through the methods, and didn't see any attempt to correct for changes in the age composition of the population ranges. From my minimal familiarity with it, it doesn't sound like it invalidates the results, but it does tend to complicate them.
http://andrewgelman.com/2015/11/06/correcting-rising-morbidity-and-mortality-in-midlife-among-white-non-hispanic-americans-in-the-21st-century-to-account-for-bias-in/ http://andrewgelman.com/2015/11/06/correcting-rising-morbidi...
http://andrewgelman.com/2015/11/06/age-adjustment-mortality-update/ http://andrewgelman.com/2015/11/06/age-adjustment-mortality-...
- WhompingWindows 8y agoDid you read the methods, though? This is the first sentence: Methods We examined age adjusted mortality rates based on the 2000 US standard population for 1999-2016 using the Underlying Cause of Death Detailed Mortality database in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) platform.27 The agency’s methods for age adjustment are described elsewhere.
- hyperpape 8y agoYes, I read this sentence. This is a problem with common ways of doing age adjustments. The issue is somewhat subtle: if you partition people into age bands (45-56), at different times in history, the average person who is in that age group may be older or younger, because different years had higher or lower birth rates. This was a particularly strong effect when the baby boomers were in the 45-56 age range. My initial comment was that this paper didn't make clear whether they addressed the issue. Having now followed through to the CDC link they have, it looks like it also uses somewhat coarse age bands.