You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An Evaluation of Nearly-Extinct Cohort Methods for Estimating the Very Elderly Populations of Australia and New Zealand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0123692 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wilma Terblanche, Tom Wilson |
| Abstract |
The rapid growth of very elderly populations requires accurate population estimates up to the highest ages. However, it is recognised that estimates derived from census counts are often unreliable. Methods that make use of death data have not previously been evaluated for Australia and New Zealand. The aim was to evaluate a number of nearly-extinct cohort methods for producing very elderly population estimates by age and sex for Australia and New Zealand. The accuracy of official estimates was also assessed. Variants of three nearly-extinct cohort methods, the Survivor Ratio method, the Das Gupta method and a new method explicitly allowing for falling mortality over time, were evaluated by retrospective application over the period 1976-1996. Estimates by sex and single years of age were compared against numbers derived from the extinct cohort method. Errors were measured by the Weighted Mean Absolute Percentage Error. It is confirmed that for Australian females the Survivor Ratio method constrained to official estimates for ages 90+ performed well. However, for Australian males and both sexes in New Zealand, more accurate estimates were obtained by constraining the Survivor Ratio method to official estimates for ages 85+. Official estimates in Australia proved reasonably accurate for ages 90+ but at 100+ they varied significantly in accuracy from year to year. Estimates produced by Statistics New Zealand in aggregate for ages 90+ proved very accurate. We recommend the use of the Survivor Ratio method constrained to official estimates for ages 85+ to create very elderly population estimates for Australia and New Zealand. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 2 | 20% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,072,573
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#104,845
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,994
of 266,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,704
of 6,790 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 266,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,790 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.