↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing the Lee-Carter Approach in the Presence of Structural Changes in Time and Age Patterns of Mortality Improvements

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Optimizing the Lee-Carter Approach in the Presence of Structural Changes in Time and Age Patterns of Mortality Improvements
Published in
Demography, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13524-017-0579-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Li, Johnny Siu-Hang Li

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 15%
Mathematics 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,314,075
of 25,416,581 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,892
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,742
of 327,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,416,581 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.