Hubbry Logo
Mortality rateMortality rateMain
Open search
Mortality rate
Community hub
Mortality rate
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mortality rate
Mortality rate
Mortality rate
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Mortality rate of countries, deaths per thousand

Mortality rate, or death rate,[1]: 189, 69  is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in a particular population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit of time. Mortality rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 1,000 individuals per year; thus, a mortality rate of 9.5 (out of 1,000) in a population of 1,000 would mean 9.5 deaths per year in that entire population, or 0.95% out of the total. It is distinct from "morbidity", which is either the prevalence or incidence of a disease, and also from the incidence rate (the number of newly appearing cases of the disease per unit of time).[1]: 189 [verification needed]

An important specific mortality rate measure is the crude death rate, which looks at mortality from all causes in a given time interval for a given population. As of 2020, for instance, the CIA estimates that the crude death rate globally will be 7.7 deaths per 1,000 people in a population per year.[2] As of 2024, the global crude death rate stood at 7.76, marking a 2.35% rise compared to 2023.[3] In a generic form,[1]: 189  mortality rates can be seen as calculated using , where d represents the deaths from whatever cause of interest is specified that occur within a given time period, p represents the size of the population in which the deaths occur (however this population is defined or limited), and is the conversion factor from the resulting fraction to another unit (e.g., multiplying by to get mortality rate per 1,000 individuals).[1]: 189 

Crude death rate, globally

[edit]

The crude death rate is defined as "the mortality rate from all causes of death for a population," calculated as the "total number of deaths during a given time interval" divided by the "mid-interval population", per 1,000 or 100,000; for instance, the population of the United States was around 290,810,000 in 2003, and in that year, approximately 2,419,900 deaths occurred in total, giving a crude death (mortality) rate of 832 deaths per 100,000.[4]: 3–20f  As of 2020, the CIA estimates the U.S. crude death rate will be 8.3 per 1,000, while it estimates that the global rate will be 7.7 per 1,000.[2]

According to the World Health Organization, the ten leading causes of death, globally, in 2016, for both sexes and all ages, were as presented in the table below.[5]

Crude death rate, per 100,000 population

  1. Ischaemic heart disease, 126
  2. Stroke, 77
  3. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 41
  4. Lower respiratory infections, 40
  5. Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 27
  6. Trachea, bronchus, and lung cancers, 23
  7. Diabetes mellitus, 21
  8. Road injury, 19
  9. Diarrhoeal diseases, 19
  10. Tuberculosis, 17

Mortality rate is also measured per thousand. It is determined by how many people of a certain age die per thousand people. Decrease of mortality rate is one of the reasons for increase of population. Development of medical science and other technologies has resulted in the decrease of mortality rate in all the countries of the world for some decades. In 1990, the mortality rate of children under five years of age was 144 per thousand, but in 2015 the child mortality rate was 38 per thousand.[citation needed]

[edit]

Other specific measures of mortality include:[4]

Measures of mortality
Name Typical definition
Perinatal mortality rate The sum of fetal deaths (stillbirths) past 22 (or 28) completed weeks of pregnancy plus the number of deaths among live-born children up to 7 completed days of life, divided by number of births.[6]
Maternal mortality rate Number of deaths of mothers assigned to pregnancy-related causes during a given time interval, divided by the number of live births during the same time interval.[4]: 3–20 
Infant mortality rate Number of deaths among children <one year of age during a given time interval divided by the number of live births during the same time interval.[4]: 3–20 
Child mortality rate
(also known as 'Under-five mortality rate')		 Number of deaths of children less than 5 years old, divided by number of live births.[7]
Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) The ratio of the number of deaths in a given (index) population to the number of deaths expected, a form of indirectly (as opposed to directly) standardized rates, where the categories are usually "defined by age, gender and race or ethnicity".[8] The numerator is calculated as , where " is the number of persons in category of the index population and is the corresponding category-specific event rate in a standard population."[8] It has also been described as a proportional comparison to the numbers of deaths that would have been expected if the population had been of a standard composition in terms of age, gender, etc.[9][full citation needed][verification needed]
Age-specific mortality rate (ASMR) The total number of deaths per year at a specific age, divided by the number of living persons at that age (e.g. age 62 at last birthday)[4]: 3–21 
Cause-specific death rate Number of deaths assigned to a specific cause during a given time interval divided by the mid-interval population[4]: 3–21 
Cumulative death rate The incidence proportion of death, that is, the proportion of a [defined] group that dies over a specified time interval,[1]: 64  whether in reference to all deaths over the time inverval, or "to deaths from a specific cause or causes".[1]: 64  It has also been described as a measure of the (growing) proportion of a group that die over a specified period (often as estimated by techniques that account for missing data by statistical censoring).[according to whom?][citation needed]
Case fatality rate (CFR) The proportion of diagnosed cases of a particular medical condition that lead to death.[10]
Infection fatality rate (IFR) The proportion of infected cases of a particular medical condition that lead to death. Similar to CFR, but adjusted for asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases.[11]

For any of these, a "sex-specific mortality rate" refers to "a mortality rate among either males or females", where the calculation involves both "numerator and denominator... limited to the one sex".[4]: 3–23 

Use in epidemiology

[edit]

In most cases there are few if any ways to obtain exact mortality rates, so epidemiologists use estimation to predict correct mortality rates. Mortality rates are usually difficult to predict due to language barriers, health infrastructure related issues, conflict, and other reasons. Maternal mortality has additional challenges, especially as they pertain to stillbirths, abortions, and multiple births. In some countries, during the 1920s, a stillbirth was defined as "a birth of at least twenty weeks' gestation in which the child shows no evidence of life after complete birth". In most countries, however, a stillbirth was defined as "the birth of a fetus, after 28 weeks of pregnancy, in which pulmonary respiration does not occur".[12]

Census data and vital statistics

[edit]

Ideally, all mortality estimation would be done using vital statistics and census data. Census data will give detailed information about the population at risk of death. The vital statistics provide information about live births and deaths in the population.[13] Often, either census data and vital statistics data is not available. This is common in developing countries, countries that are in conflict, areas where natural disasters have caused mass displacement, and other areas where there is a humanitarian crisis [13]

Household surveys

[edit]

Household surveys or interviews are another way in which mortality rates are often assessed. There are several methods to estimate mortality in different segments of the population. One such example is the sisterhood method, which involves researchers estimating maternal mortality by contacting women in populations of interest and asking whether or not they have a sister, if the sister is of child-bearing age (usually 15) and conducting an interview or written questions about possible deaths among sisters. The sisterhood method, however, does not work in cases where sisters may have died before the sister being interviewed was born.[14]

Orphanhood surveys estimate mortality by questioning children are asked about the mortality of their parents. It has often been criticized as an adult mortality rate that is very biased for several reasons. The adoption effect is one such instance in which orphans often do not realize that they are adopted. Additionally, interviewers may not realize that an adoptive or foster parent is not the child's biological parent. There is also the issue of parents being reported on by multiple children while some adults have no children, thus are not counted in mortality estimates.[13]

Widowhood surveys estimate adult mortality by responding to questions about the deceased husband or wife. One limitation of the widowhood survey surrounds the issues of divorce, where people may be more likely to report that they are widowed in places where there is the great social stigma around being a divorcee. Another limitation is that multiple marriages introduce biased estimates, so individuals are often asked about first marriage. Biases will be significant if the association of death between spouses, such as those in countries with large AIDS epidemics.[13]

Sampling

[edit]

Sampling refers to the selection of a subset of the population of interest to efficiently gain information about the entire population. Samples should be representative of the population of interest. Cluster sampling is an approach to non-probability sampling; this is an approach in which each member of the population is assigned to a group (cluster), and then clusters are randomly selected, and all members of selected clusters are included in the sample. Often combined with stratification techniques (in which case it is called multistage sampling), cluster sampling is the approach most often used by epidemiologists. In areas of forced migration, there is more significant sampling error. Thus cluster sampling is not the ideal choice.[15]

Mortality statistics

[edit]
For worldwide statistics, see List of sovereign states and dependent territories by mortality rate.

Causes of death vary greatly between developed and less developed countries;[citation needed] see also list of causes of death by rate for worldwide statistics.

World historical and predicted crude death rates (1950–2050)
UN, medium variant, 2012 rev.[16]
Years CDR Years CDR
1950–1955 19.1 2000–2005 8.4
1955–1960 17.3 2005–2010 8.1
1960–1965 16.2 2010–2015 8.1
1965–1970 12.9 2015–2020 8.1
1970–1975 11.6 2020–2025 8.1
1975–1980 10.6 2025–2030 8.3
1980–1985 10.0 2030–2035 8.6
1985–1990 9.4 2035–2040 9.0
1990–1995 9.1 2040–2045 9.4
1995–2000 8.8 2045–2050 9.7
Scatter plot of the natural logarithm (ln) of the crude death rate against the natural log of per capita GDP.[clarification needed][currency needs to be stated.] The slope of the trend line is the elasticity of the crude death rate with respect to per capita income.[citation needed] It indicates that as of the date of the basis data set,[when?] an increase in per capita income tends to be associated with a decrease in the crude death rate.[citation needed] Source: World Development Indicators.[full citation needed]

According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 million people, all causes of death combined, die each year. In 2006, more than 36 million died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients".[17]

Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe,[18][19][20] about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age-related causes.[21] In industrialized nations, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90%.[21]

Economics

[edit]

Scholars have stated that there is a significant relationship between a low standard of living that results from low income; and increased mortality rates. A low standard of living is more likely to result in malnutrition, which can make people more susceptible to disease and more likely to die from these diseases. A lower standard of living may lead to as a lack of hygiene and sanitation, increased exposure to and the spread of disease, and a lack of access to proper medical care and facilities. Poor health can in turn contribute to low and reduced incomes, which can create a loop known as the health-poverty trap.[22] Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen has stated that mortality rates can serve as an indicator of economic success and failure.[23][24]: 27, 32 

Historically, mortality rates have been adversely affected by short term price increases. Studies have shown that mortality rates increase at a rate concurrent with increases in food prices. These effects have a greater impact on vulnerable, lower-income populations than they do on populations with a higher standard of living.[24]: 35–36, 70 

In more recent times, higher mortality rates have been less tied to socio-economic levels within a given society, but have differed more between low and high-income countries. It is now found that national income, which is directly tied to standard of living within a country, is the largest factor in mortality rates being higher in low-income countries.[25]

Preventable mortality

[edit]

These rates are especially pronounced for children under 5 years old, particularly in lower-income, developing countries. These children have a much greater chance of dying of diseases that have become mostly preventable in higher-income parts of the world. More children die of malaria, respiratory infections, diarrhea, perinatal conditions, and measles in developing nations. Data shows that after the age of 5 these preventable causes level out between high and low-income countries.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mortality rate

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The mortality rate measures the frequency of deaths in a defined during a specified time interval, serving as a core metric in and for assessing overall death occurrence. The crude mortality rate, the simplest form, is calculated by dividing the total number of deaths by the mid-year and multiplying by 1,000 to yield deaths per 1,000 individuals annually. More refined variants include age-specific rates, which account for demographic structure, and cause-specific rates, which isolate deaths from particular diseases or events to reveal targeted health risks. These rates enable comparisons across populations, evaluation of interventions, and identification of disparities driven by factors such as infectious diseases, chronic conditions, , and access to medical care. Globally, crude mortality rates have fallen markedly since the mid-20th century, declining by approximately 67% from 1950 to 2023, primarily due to reductions in infectious diseases and improvements in living standards, though non-communicable diseases now dominate in most regions and persists in areas with weaker healthcare systems. Leading causes worldwide include ischaemic heart disease, , and , underscoring the shift toward age-related and lifestyle-influenced fatalities amid ongoing challenges like and aging populations.

Definitions and Measures

Crude Mortality Rate

The crude mortality rate, also known as the crude death rate, quantifies the total number of from all causes within a over a specified period, typically a , expressed per 1,000 individuals at midyear. This measure serves as a basic indicator of overall mortality levels, reflecting the aggregate impact of , environmental, and socioeconomic factors without adjustments for age distribution, sex, or other variables. It is widely used in to monitor broad trends and allocate resources, though its simplicity limits cross-population comparability. The rate is calculated by dividing the total number of deaths (D) by the estimated midyear population (P), then multiplying by 1,000: ![{\displaystyle d/pd/p\cdot 10^{3}}], where the exponent 3 yields deaths per 1,000. For instance, if a population of 1,000,000 experiences 7,500 deaths in a year, the crude mortality rate is (7,500 / 1,000,000) × 1,000 = 7.5 per 1,000. Midyear population is preferred to approximate exposure time, avoiding biases from net migration or births/deaths within the period. Data derive primarily from vital registration systems, where completeness varies; in regions with incomplete records, estimates incorporate censuses or surveys. Globally, the crude mortality rate stood at 7.58 per 1,000 in 2023, down from 7.71 in 2022, reflecting long-term declines driven by advances in , , and medical care, though temporarily elevated by events like the . In high-income countries with aging s, rates often exceed 10 per 1,000, such as 9.2 in the United States for 2023 provisional data, while low-income regions with younger demographics report lower figures around 6-8 per 1,000. This demographic sensitivity underscores a key limitation: unadjusted rates can mislead when comparing nations, as an older inherently yields higher crude rates even with lower age-specific mortality. For accurate inter-population analysis, standardized rates are preferred, yet crude rates remain valuable for temporal tracking within stable demographics.

Standardized Mortality Rates

Standardized mortality rates, also known as age-standardized or adjusted rates, account for differences in age structures to enable valid comparisons of mortality across groups, regions, or time periods that might otherwise be confounded by demographic variations. Unlike crude rates, which reflect overall deaths per without adjustment, standardized rates apply age-specific mortality to a reference 's structure, isolating underlying health differences from compositional effects. This method is essential in because age is a primary driver of mortality , and unadjusted comparisons can misleadingly attribute higher rates to policy or environmental factors when they stem from an older demographic profile. Two primary approaches exist: direct and indirect standardization. In direct standardization, age-specific death rates from the study population are weighted by the age distribution of a standard population, yielding a hypothetical rate as if the shared that structure. The involves summing the products of standard population sizes in each age group (ni) and study rates (Ri), divided by the total standard population, often scaled to per : / ∑ni × 105, where i denotes age strata. This produces comparable rates but requires detailed age-specific data for the , limiting its use when such breakdowns are sparse or unstable, as in small populations. Indirect standardization computes the standardized mortality (SMR), which applies reference rates to the study 's age structure to estimate expected deaths, then ratios observed deaths to this expectation: SMR = (observed deaths / expected deaths) × 100, where an SMR of 100 indicates mortality matching the reference. Expected deaths per age group are calculated as (study in group × reference rate), summed across groups. Preferred when study rates are unreliable due to low event counts, the SMR yields a relative measure rather than an absolute rate, complicating rate comparisons across references but useful for assessing excess risk, such as in occupational cohorts. Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) routinely publish age-standardized rates using direct methods with standards like the WHO or year 2000 U.S. population to track global trends, such as cancer mortality, revealing true disparities beyond crude figures. For instance, the CDC's age-adjusted rates for all causes in the U.S. (using the 2000 standard) stood at 732.0 per 100,000 in 2021, lower than crude rates due to a younger standard distribution. Limitations include sensitivity to the chosen standard—shifting from the 1940 to 2000 U.S. standard reduced reported rates for older-heavy populations—and inability to adjust for unmeasured confounders beyond age. Both methods assume stable age-mortality relationships and require accurate age data, underscoring validation against vital records.

Specific Mortality Metrics

Specific mortality metrics encompass rates disaggregated by attributes such as age, , sex, race/ethnicity, or , providing targeted insights into mortality patterns beyond aggregate crude measures. These metrics facilitate identification of high-risk subgroups, evaluation of intervention , and causal attribution of deaths to modifiable factors like or behavior. Unlike standardized rates, which adjust for compositional differences, specific metrics directly reflect raw occurrences within defined categories, often expressed per 1,000 or units for comparability. Age-specific mortality rates calculate the number of deaths in a particular age group divided by the mid-interval of that group, typically multiplied by 1,000 or 100,000. They reveal how mortality risk escalates with age due to cumulative physiological decline and exposure to hazards, while highlighting vulnerabilities in early life stages. For example, the infant mortality rate—deaths of children under age 1 per 1,000 live births—serves as a key age-specific indicator of healthcare quality and socioeconomic conditions; globally, it measured 27.1 per 1,000 in 2023, reflecting persistent disparities between high-income (around 4 per 1,000) and low-income regions (over 40 per 1,000). , the 2023 rate was 5.61 per 1,000 live births, with neonatal deaths (first 28 days) comprising the majority. Cause-specific mortality rates denote deaths from a designated cause (e.g., cancer, , or ) divided by the total or person-years at , standardized to per for scale. This metric isolates the contribution of individual etiologies, aiding prioritization of resources toward prevalent or preventable causes; non-communicable diseases, for instance, drove over 70% of global deaths in recent assessments, underscoring shifts from infectious to chronic burdens. Formulas incorporate cause-attributed deaths in the numerator, with denominators adjusted for exposure time to account for dynamic .
Metric TypeFormula BasisKey Example (Global, Recent Data)
Age-Specific (e.g., )Deaths in age group / Population in age group × 1,00027.1 per 1,000 live births (2023)
Cause-SpecificCause-attributed deaths / Total population × 100,000Cardiovascular: ~18,600 per 100,000 (leading cause, 2019 estimates, with upward trends in aging populations)
Sex-Specific (e.g., )Deaths in sex group / Population in sex group × 1,000Probability of dying ages 15–60: ~150–200 per 1,000 males vs. lower for females (varies by region)
Subgroup-specific rates, such as those by race/ethnicity or income, further delineate inequities; for instance, ethnicity-specific death rates in the U.S. show higher rates among certain minorities for causes like homicide or diabetes, attributable to differential access to care and environmental exposures rather than inherent traits. These metrics underpin causal analyses, emphasizing empirical drivers like nutrition, sanitation, and medical access over ideological narratives. Validation relies on vital records and modeling to mitigate underreporting in low-resource settings.

Pre-Modern and Early Industrial Eras

In pre-modern societies, including ancient civilizations and medieval , crude mortality rates typically ranged from 30 to 50 deaths per 1,000 population annually, driven primarily by pervasive infectious diseases, periodic famines, and high vulnerability to violence. at birth averaged 20 to 35 years across settlements (3300–1200 BCE) and and (510–330 BCE), with rates often exceeding 200 per 1,000 live births due to neonatal infections, diarrheal diseases, and . In medieval , for instance, at birth for land-owning boys was approximately 31 years, though this figure was skewed by claiming 30 to 50 percent of individuals before age 15, with infectious causes predominant. These rates reflected limited measures, reliance on , and exposure to zoonotic pathogens without effective interventions. The (1347–1351) exemplified episodic spikes, reducing Europe's population by 30 to 60 percent through transmission, temporarily elevating crude mortality to levels approaching 100 per 1,000 in affected regions, though baseline rates rebounded post-plague due to reduced density and possible acquired immunity. Maternal mortality compounded these pressures, estimated at 1 to 2 percent per birth in medieval contexts, far exceeding modern figures, often from puerperal sepsis or hemorrhage amid rudimentary midwifery practices. Overall, pre-modern mortality exhibited marked seasonality and volatility, with winters amplifying respiratory deaths and harvests mitigating famine-related losses, underscoring the causal primacy of environmental and biological vulnerabilities over socioeconomic mitigations. Transitioning to the early industrial era (circa 1750–1850), in and emerging industrial centers initially intensified mortality, with crude rates in cities like reaching 40 to 50 per 1,000, attributable to overcrowding, contaminated water, and coal smoke exacerbating and . persisted at 150 to 250 per 1,000 live births, with over 50 percent of mid-19th-century English deaths linked to infections, disproportionately affecting urban poor through poor ventilation and adulterated milk. Paradoxically, some evidence indicates a modest decline in urban from 1750 to 1820, potentially from selective migration of healthier rural individuals and shifts in endemic patterns, though this was offset by reversals in the 1820s–1840s amid rapid factory growth and outbreaks. These dynamics highlight how industrialization amplified density-dependent transmission before reforms, with causal factors rooted in microbial ecology rather than aggregate income gains.

19th and 20th Century Declines

In , mortality rates began a sustained decline around 1800, with crude death rates falling gradually amid the early stages of industrialization and , though urban areas initially experienced elevated mortality due to and poor . rates, a key driver of overall declines, averaged 120-250 deaths per 1,000 live births in mid-19th century European countries, dropping to around 66 per 1,000 by 1914 in several nations as measures took effect. at birth in rose from approximately 35-40 years in 1800 to over 45 years by 1900, reflecting reductions primarily in deaths from infectious diseases like and diarrheal conditions among children and young adults. Empirical evidence attributes much of the 19th-century decline to non-medical factors, including improvements in from rising and , alongside engineering-based interventions such as sewage systems, clean water filtration, and waste removal, which curbed waterborne and airborne pathogens. For instance, in Italian cities, sanitary reforms implemented in 1887-1888 correlated with sharp drops in infectious disease mortality, underscoring the causal role of environmental controls over therapeutic advances, which remained limited until the late . These changes were uneven, with rural areas often faring better than industrial cities until broader diffusion occurred, and debates persist on the relative contributions of versus , though data favor integrated socioeconomic improvements as foundational. The 20th century witnessed accelerated global mortality declines, with worldwide surging from 32 years in 1900 to about 66 years by 2000, as infectious diseases receded dramatically in both developed and developing regions. , infant mortality fell from 100 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1915 to under 30 by 1950, while under-5 mortality globally plummeted from over 200 per 1,000 in the early 1900s to around 90 by century's end, halving death rates across most age groups. Leading causes shifted: in 1900, , , and gastrointestinal infections accounted for over 30% of U.S. deaths, but by mid-century, these had declined by 90-99% in many countries due to targeted interventions. Key 20th-century drivers included widespread campaigns against , , and —eradicate or nearly eliminating some pathogens—alongside antibiotics like penicillin introduced in the 1940s, which addressed bacterial infections previously untreatable. Continued public health efforts, such as and for , amplified these gains, though enabling better housing and remained causal underpinnings, with evidence showing mortality reductions preceding mass medical access in some contexts. In and , the solidified, with infectious diseases yielding to chronic conditions like heart disease, but overall crude mortality rates dropped to 8-12 per 1,000 by the late 20th century in high-income nations.

Late 20th to Early 21st Century Shifts

Global age-standardized mortality rates declined substantially from to , falling by about 33% worldwide, from 551 to 369 deaths per 100,000 , driven primarily by reductions in communicable diseases, , and nutritional deficiencies.30925-9/fulltext) This period marked the acceleration of the , with communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes dropping from 18 million deaths in to 8 million in , offset partially by a rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like cardiovascular conditions and cancers, which accounted for 74% of global deaths by .30925-9/fulltext) Key drivers included expanded access to , antibiotics, and antiretroviral therapies, alongside socioeconomic improvements in low-income regions; for instance, under-5 mortality plummeted from 93 per 1,000 live births in to 38 in globally, with seeing a 60% reduction despite the peak in the late and early . However, crude mortality rates in aging populations, such as in and , began stabilizing or slightly rising by the due to demographic shifts, even as age-adjusted rates continued downward. Regional divergences highlighted causal vulnerabilities: In and former Soviet states, male mortality spiked in the —Russia's crude rate rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 1989 to 16.3 in 1994—attributable to alcohol-related deaths, , and weakened healthcare systems, with excess male deaths exceeding 3 million by 2000 before partial recovery via policy reforms. Conversely, high-income countries experienced NCD dominance, with ischemic heart disease remaining the top global killer but its age-standardized rate declining 30% from 1990 to 2019 due to statins, smoking bans, and control.30925-9/fulltext) Yet, "deaths of despair" emerged in the and , where midlife (ages 45-54) all-cause mortality rose 3-5% annually for from 1999-2013, linked to opioids, suicides, and alcohol, contrasting with declines in peer nations and reversing prior gains. Maternal mortality globally fell 38% from 2000 to 2019 (from 227 to 140 per 100,000 live births), aided by skilled birth attendance, though progress stalled in fragile states due to conflicts and weak governance. Early 21st-century shocks amplified shifts: The HIV epidemic, causing 1.7 million deaths at its 2004 peak, waned to 690,000 by 2019 with antiretroviral rollout, averting millions of deaths in Africa. Obesity and diabetes fueled NCD rises, with diabetes deaths doubling to 1.5 million annually by 2019, straining systems amid aging. In the US, age-adjusted rates for working-age adults (25-64) diverged upward relative to OECD peers since the 1990s, with a 15-20% excess by 2017 tied to policy failures in addiction treatment and inequality, per National Academies analysis. These patterns underscore causal realism: Biomedical interventions and behavioral changes drove gains, but socioeconomic disruptions and lifestyle epidemics introduced reversals, with data from vital registration and GBD modeling revealing underreporting biases in low-income areas by up to 20%. Overall, the era's net decline masked growing NCD burdens and regional inequities, setting stages for later challenges like the COVID-19 surge.30925-9/fulltext)

Measurement and Data Sources

Vital Registration and Official Records

Vital registration systems, encompassing and vital statistics (CRVS), mandate the recording of s through official mechanisms such as death certificates completed by physicians, coroners, or local authorities, providing the for empirical mortality data in jurisdictions with established . These records capture essential details including date, location, age, , and , enabling the computation of crude mortality rates as registered deaths divided by mid-year estimates. In countries with comprehensive systems, such as those in and , registration is nearly universal, with coverage exceeding 95% for all age groups, facilitating reliable national and subnational mortality trends. Globally, however, death registration remains incomplete, with approximately 40% of the world's annual deaths—roughly 28 million—unrecorded as of , predominantly in low- and middle-income countries where rural and informal settlements predominate. Only 68% of countries and territories achieve at least 90% completeness in death registration, according to assessments, leading to systematic underestimation of overall mortality rates, especially for non-infant deaths. In high-income settings like the , the National Vital Statistics System integrates state-level registrations into a centralized database, yielding high-fidelity data coded per standards for causes like or neoplasms. In contrast, developing countries exhibit stark gaps, with low-income nations registering fewer than 20% of deaths on average and documenting causes for just 8% of those reported, often relying on verbal autopsies or lay reporting that inflate ill-defined categories like "senility" or omit infectious diseases prevalent in under-served areas. This incompleteness biases mortality rates downward, particularly for adults over 15, where capture-recapture studies reveal undercounts of 20-50% in regions like and . Official records in these contexts also suffer from delays exceeding six months in 40% of cases, hindering timely policy responses to epidemics or demographic shifts. International bodies such as the compile vital registration into databases like the WHO Mortality Database, drawing from over 150 member states' submissions, but adjust for incompleteness using demographic models where coverage falls below 80%. Despite advancements, systemic challenges persist, including resource constraints in registrars, cultural resistance to reporting (e.g., stigma around HIV-related deaths), and urban-rural disparities that skew toward higher socioeconomic groups. Validation efforts, such as dual coding of certificates, underscore that even in developed systems, cause-of-death accuracy hovers at 70-90%, with errors more pronounced for comorbidities or external causes like accidents.

Surveys, Censuses, and Sampling Methods

Censuses serve as foundational sources for mortality estimation by providing comprehensive denominators essential for calculating rates, particularly in countries with incomplete vital registration systems. In many nations, decennial or periodic enumerate total population sizes and age-sex distributions, which are interpolated or extrapolated to mid-year estimates for use in denominators of crude mortality rates. Additionally, often incorporate specific questions on child survival, such as the number of children ever born and those still alive, enabling indirect estimation of and under-5 mortality rates through methods like the or Coale-Demeny techniques, which adjust for age-specific patterns and reporting biases. For instance, the U.S. Census Bureau's population data, derived from decennial and annual estimates, underpin national death rate calculations by dividing registered deaths by mid-year resident populations. Household surveys, such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted in over 90 countries since 1984, collect retrospective birth histories from women of reproductive age to directly estimate rates. These surveys record dates of births and deaths for children born in the past 5–10 years, allowing computation of age-specific mortality probabilities using synthetic cohort or period methods, expressed as rates per 1,000 live births for neonatal, , and under-5 periods. Direct estimation involves aggregating deaths within defined age intervals and exposure periods, often adjusted for censoring and heaping on dates; indirect methods supplement this when sample sizes are small, using models like those from the for fertility-mortality linkages. For adult mortality, sibling survival histories in DHS and similar surveys query respondents on siblings' survival status and ages at , yielding indirect estimates of probabilities of dying between ages 15 and 60, calibrated against reference patterns to account for recall errors. Sampling methods in these surveys and censuses ensure representativeness, particularly in low-resource settings lacking complete civil registration. Multistage cluster sampling is standard: primary sampling units (e.g., enumeration areas from censuses) are stratified by urban/rural and regional variables, followed by random selection of clusters and households within them, with women systematically sampled for detailed interviews. This design yields nationally representative estimates with design effects accounting for clustering, typically achieving precision for infant mortality rates within ±10–20% standard error in samples of 5,000–10,000 women. In humanitarian emergencies, two-stage cluster sampling adapts census frames or adapts to conflict zones, selecting 30–96 clusters of 30 households each to monitor crude mortality rates exceeding emergency thresholds of 1 per 10,000 person-days. Validation studies, such as record linkage between censuses and health surveillance in Burkina Faso, confirm that census-derived mortality aligns closely with gold-standard data when age misreporting is corrected, though surveys often provide higher resolution for recent periods due to targeted questions.

Modeling and Estimation Approaches

In populations with incomplete vital registration systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where coverage may range from 20% to 80%, indirect estimation methods are employed to derive mortality rates from data, surveys, or demographic balancing equations. These approaches, such as the Brass method, utilize reported sibling survival or orphanhood data to estimate adult mortality probabilities, adjusting for age-specific reporting biases through regression models calibrated against known populations. Similarly, the own-children method reconstructs age-specific fertility and mortality patterns from current compositions, enabling estimation of and rates with completeness levels as low as partial survey data. Parametric models provide structured assumptions about the age pattern of mortality, facilitating and where direct data is sparse. The Gompertz-Makeham law models mortality rates as exponentially increasing with age plus a constant frailty term, parameterized as μx=A+Bcx\mu_x = A + B c^x, where AA captures extrinsic risks, and BB and cc govern ; this has been fitted to historical and contemporary datasets to estimate baseline rates in data-poor settings. More flexible parametric forms, like the Heligman-Pollard model, decompose mortality into components for , adult, and senescent phases using eight parameters derived from fitting, allowing adaptation to diverse populations via . Stochastic time-series models, such as the Lee-Carter framework, decompose log-central mortality rates into age-specific intercepts, a time-varying trend factor, and age sensitivities, estimated via and fitted to historical series for forecasting. Originally applied to developed nations, extensions incorporate smoothing splines or multiple components to handle volatility, as in the three-component smooth Lee-Carter model, which separates period, cohort, and irregular effects for improved prediction accuracy over horizons up to 20 years. Bayesian hierarchical models integrate heterogeneous data sources—vital registration, censuses, surveys, and verbal autopsies—through multilevel priors that borrow strength across countries and regions, producing posterior estimates of age-sex-specific rates with uncertainty intervals. The Division's Bayesian hierarchical model for adult mortality (45q15) uses space-time random effects and covariates like prevalence, estimating global trends since 1950 while accounting for underreporting biases up to 50% in . For completeness adjustment in crude death rate estimation, empirical Bayesian methods regress registered rates against expected totals from surveys, predicting coverage levels with R-squared values exceeding 0.85 across diverse registration qualities. These approaches prioritize empirical validation against benchmarks, though they assume stable age patterns that may falter amid rapid epidemiological shifts.

Errors, Biases, and Validation Challenges

Mortality rate estimates are prone to errors arising from incomplete death registration, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where vital registration systems cover less than 50% of in many regions, leading to systematic undercounting of total mortality. Omission of and inaccuracies in timing further compound these issues across , surveys, and censuses, with method-specific problems such as in birth histories inflating or deflating under-5 mortality rates by up to 20-30% in household surveys. In developing countries, underreporting can obscure up to 8 million annual attributable to poor-quality systems, as evidenced by discrepancies between modeled estimates and sparse empirical . Cause-of-death misclassification introduces significant errors through "garbage codes," which are vague or implausible entries like "senility" or "ill-defined symptoms" that fail to specify underlying causes and comprise 10-30% of coded deaths in countries with partial registration coverage. The World Health Organization employs algorithmic redistribution of these codes to substantive causes based on age-sex patterns and regional data, but this process relies on assumptions that may propagate uncertainty, especially where verbal autopsies—the primary tool in LMICs—yield agreement rates below 70% with clinical diagnoses for major causes like cardiovascular disease. Misclassification is exacerbated by untrained certifiers and cultural taboos against reporting certain deaths, such as neonatal or injury-related ones in rural areas. Biases in mortality data often stem from selective reporting and structural factors; for instance, sample selection in survey-based estimates from or household data can downwardly bias adult mortality by excluding hard-to-reach populations, with errors amplified in conflict zones or among migrants. In crisis contexts like the , countries with low healthcare capacity exhibited underreporting probabilities exceeding 50%, potentially due to diagnostic limitations and incentives to minimize official counts, while urban-rural divides introduce ascertainment bias favoring better-monitored areas. Socioeconomic undercounting affects marginalized groups, as vital events in informal settlements are frequently omitted, distorting rates by 15-25% in . Validating mortality statistics faces inherent challenges, including the scarcity of gold-standard benchmarks in resource-poor settings, where comparisons to national death indices or social security —feasible in high-income contexts—reveal linkage errors up to 10% even in integrated databases. via multiple sources, such as combining administrative claims with surveys, improves composite estimates but requires adjustments for differential completeness, with Bayesian models addressing population-at-risk uncertainty yet introducing parametric assumptions that can bias risk maps. Empirical validation through capture-recapture methods or sibling survival histories provides checks but underperforms in high-mobility populations, and global modeling by entities like WHO often extrapolates from incomplete data, necessitating transparency on uncertainty intervals that can span 20-50% for LMIC rates. These limitations underscore the need for enhanced investments, as unaddressed biases erode the reliability of cross-national comparisons and policy inferences.

Causal Determinants

Biological and Demographic Drivers

Human mortality rates are fundamentally shaped by biological processes, foremost among them the phenomenon of , which manifests as an exponential increase in the force of mortality after early adulthood. This pattern is captured by the Gompertz component of the Gompertz-Makeham law, empirically describing the age-specific mortality hazard as μ(x) ≈ G * e^{bcx}, where G represents initial mortality intensity, b the rate of , c an exponential base, and x age; a constant age-independent term (Makeham's A) accounts for extrinsic risks like accidents. The law holds across cohorts and , arising from cumulative molecular damage, shortening, and dysregulation in repair mechanisms, leading to vulnerability from senescence-associated diseases like cancer and cardiovascular failure. Sex differences constitute another core biological driver, with s consistently exhibiting higher mortality rates than s across most age groups and causes, contributing to a global gap of 4-6 years as of 2023. Biologically, this stems from factors including the protective effects of against , greater male susceptibility to X-linked disorders due to hemizygosity, and higher baseline metabolic rates accelerating wear; twin studies disentangle these from behavioral influences, confirming an intrinsic female advantage of 1-2 years even after controlling for . External causes amplify the gap, but biological resilience underlies the persistence from infancy—where male neonatal mortality exceeds female by 20-30%—through . Genetic factors influence individual lifespan variation, with heritability estimates from twin and studies ranging 20-30% in modern populations, reflecting polygenic contributions from thousands of variants modulating inflammation, , and pathways. Genome-wide association studies identify loci like and APOE, where favorable alleles correlate with reduced all-cause mortality risk by 10-20%; however, gene-environment interactions limit , as environmental confounders inflate apparent in some analyses to 50% when unadjusted. Rare monogenic syndromes, such as , underscore causal genetic roles but account for negligible population-level variance. Demographically, population age and sex composition directly determine crude mortality rates through weighted averages of age-sex-specific rates, which span orders of magnitude: under-5 mortality averages 37 per 1,000 globally (2023), dips to near-zero in mid-adulthood, then surges beyond age 65 to exceed 50 per 1,000 annually in high-income nations. Aging populations, as in (median age 49 in 2023) versus (18), yield crude rates of ~11 versus ~9 per 1,000 despite similar life expectancies, as the elderly skew elevates aggregates; fertility declines exacerbate this by contracting youth cohorts, amplifying senescence-driven deaths. Sex ratios further modulate rates, with male-biased adult populations (e.g., via selective migration or warfare) increasing overall mortality by 5-10% due to higher male hazards. These compositional effects causally link demographic transitions—lowering and —to rising crude rates in post-demographic transition societies, independent of per-capita risk improvements.

Socioeconomic and Behavioral Factors

, encompassing , , and occupation, exhibits a strong inverse with mortality rates, where lower status correlates with higher premature risks. In the United States, analysis of deidentified tax records from 2001 to 2014 revealed that at age 40 for men in the highest exceeded that of the lowest by 14.6 years, while for women the gap was 10.1 years, with this disparity widening over the period. Similarly, shows a pronounced effect: U.S. adults with degrees live an average of 11 years longer than those without a , based on data spanning two decades up to 2023, during which graduates' rose to 84.2 years. Each additional year of reduces adult mortality by approximately 2%, an impact comparable to lifelong adherence. These gradients persist even after adjusting for behavioral factors, suggesting direct causal pathways such as or limited healthcare access in low-status groups. Behavioral factors, including , excessive alcohol consumption, , and physical inactivity, independently drive substantial mortality burdens, often clustering in lower socioeconomic strata. alone accounts for a leading share of preventable deaths; in cohort studies, current smokers face 2-4 times higher all-cause mortality risks than non-smokers, contributing to over 8 million global deaths annually as of recent estimates. , defined by BMI ≥30, elevates mortality through cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, with or obese individuals showing at least 22% higher all-cause death rates when combined with and inactivity. Heavy alcohol use and sedentary s compound these risks, where the cumulative effect of multiple adverse behaviors can shorten by 10-15 years. Although such behaviors mediate only about 12% of the socioeconomic-mortality association, their inversely tracks SES, implying that interventions targeting personal choices could narrow gaps, yet structural constraints in low-SES environments limit adoption. Empirical data indicate that improvements explain limited portions of SES disparities, underscoring residual influences like environmental exposures or genetic predispositions.

Technological and Innovation-Led Reductions

Technological innovations in and infrastructure have driven substantial declines in mortality rates by addressing infectious diseases, which historically accounted for the of deaths prior to the mid-. Advances such as , antibiotics, and systems enabled causal reductions in and treatment failures, independent of broader socioeconomic changes. For instance, empirical analyses attribute roughly half of the mortality drop in U.S. cities during the early to clean technologies like and chlorination, which targeted waterborne diseases such as typhoid and . Vaccination programs represent a cornerstone of innovation-led mortality reductions, particularly for childhood diseases. The Expanded Programme on Immunization, launched by the in 1974, has averted an estimated 154 million deaths globally over the subsequent 50 years, with vaccines alone preventing nearly 94 million fatalities. In terms of causal impact, have contributed to 40% of the global decline in rates since widespread deployment, and up to 52% in the African region, by interrupting transmission chains of pathogens like , , and pertussis. In the United States, routine childhood immunizations from 1994 to 2023 prevented deaths among millions of infants, correlating with under-five mortality falling from over 10 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to around 6 by 2020. Antimicrobial agents, introduced in the 1940s, further accelerated declines by treating bacterial infections that previously caused high fatality. The widespread use of penicillin and subsequent antibiotics following led to an estimated 3% overall reduction in global death rates, equivalent to about one year of gain in high-income settings. This impact stemmed from direct efficacy against , , and wound infections, with studies showing rapid mortality drops in treated populations; for example, pre-antibiotic era mortality exceeded 30%, falling to under 5% post-introduction. While antibiotic resistance has since emerged as a countervailing force—contributing to 1.27 million direct deaths in 2019—the net historical effect remains a profound reduction in infectious . Engineering innovations in and complemented medical breakthroughs by preventing at the source. In U.S. cities from 1900 to 1936, implementing sewers and safe water systems reduced by approximately 27 log points, accounting for two-thirds of the decline in ages 1-4 and three-quarters for infants. Globally, full coverage of such could avert up to 2.2 million annual child deaths from diarrheal diseases, as evidenced by correlations between sanitation adoption and typhoid mortality falls in and during the late . Contemporary medical technologies, including diagnostics and procedural advancements, continue this trajectory by enhancing survival from non-communicable diseases. Peer-reviewed estimates indicate that innovations in devices, imaging, and pharmaceuticals have extended by several years since 1990, particularly for cardiovascular and cancer conditions, through improved detection and intervention efficacy. For example, the adoption of coronary artery bypass grafting and statins in the late reduced age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality by over 50% in developed nations. However, these gains vary by access, with causal attribution requiring controls for factors like behavioral changes. Overall, such technologies explain about one-third of recent mortality reductions in trauma and chronic illness contexts, underscoring their role in shifting death profiles from acute to degenerative causes.

Policy and Environmental Influences

Public health policies targeting infectious disease control, such as widespread programs, have substantially lowered mortality rates from preventable illnesses. Global immunization efforts averted at least 154 million deaths over the past 50 years, with vaccines accounting for 40% of the decline in worldwide and 52% in as of 2024. In the United States, early 20th-century interventions like chlorination of water supplies and reduced waterborne and food-related mortality, contributing to a rapid drop in overall death rates before widespread use. Tobacco control measures, including taxes, advertising bans, and smoking restrictions, have prevented millions of premature deaths from smoking-related diseases. In the , such policies averted 8 million premature deaths between 1964 and 2012, including 3.9 million deaths over five decades ending in 2025. Road safety regulations, particularly mandatory seatbelt laws, have decreased traffic fatalities by enhancing occupant protection; lap-shoulder belts reduce fatal risk by 60% for front-seat passengers, saving an estimated 14,955 lives in the in 2017 alone. Increased expenditures correlate with lower preventable mortality, with a 1% spending rise linked to a 0.22% reduction in such deaths across communities. Environmental exposures, notably air pollution, elevate mortality primarily through cardiovascular and respiratory pathways. Ambient air pollution caused 6.7 million deaths globally in 2019, representing 68% of premature deaths from ischemic heart disease and stroke. Broader environmental risks, including unsafe water, soil pollution, and chemical exposures, contribute to 12.6 million annual deaths, with poor air quality showing the strongest association with higher all-cause mortality in US counties. Policies mitigating these factors, such as emission standards, have demonstrably curbed pollution-attributable deaths, though enforcement varies and residual risks persist in high-exposure regions.

Variations and Patterns

Global and Regional Disparities

Mortality rates display pronounced global and regional disparities, reflecting variations in healthcare , infectious , nutritional status, and socioeconomic conditions. The global crude death rate, which measures deaths per 1,000 without age adjustment, was 7.58 in 2023. However, crude rates can mislead due to differing age structures; for instance, aging populations in high-income regions like exhibit higher crude rates despite lower underlying mortality risks compared to younger populations in low-income regions burdened by higher age-specific death rates from preventable causes. Age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR), which adjust for age distribution using a standard , offer a more comparable metric for assessing true disparities in mortality intensity. In the WHO's Global Health Estimates for 2019, the global all-cause ASMR stood at approximately 740 deaths per 100,000 population. Regional variations are stark: the African Region recorded an ASMR exceeding 1,000 per 100,000, driven by high burdens of communicable diseases such as , , and lower respiratory infections, alongside limited access to sanitation and . In contrast, the European Region's ASMR was around 550 per 100,000, benefiting from advanced medical interventions, vaccination coverage, and lower infectious disease loads. The and regions fell between these extremes, with ASMRs of roughly 650 and 800 per 100,000, respectively, influenced by mixtures of non-communicable diseases in urban areas and persistent infectious threats in rural or underserved zones. These disparities manifest more acutely in specific metrics like premature mortality, defined as the probability of dying between ages 30 and 70 from non-communicable diseases. In 2019, this probability was 15% in and but approached 37% in low-income regions of and . The reinforces this, showing 's all-cause ASMR roughly double that of high-income regions in 2021, with slower declines in youth mortality rates amid stalled progress on child survival interventions. Such gaps persist despite global health initiatives, as evidenced by under-five mortality rates halving worldwide since 2000 but remaining over 70 per 1,000 live births in parts of versus under 5 in Europe as of 2023. Within regions, subnational variations amplify global patterns; for example, rural areas in low-income countries often exceed urban by 20-50% due to barriers in emergency care and chronic disease management. Official estimates from UN and WHO rely on vital registration where available but incorporate modeling for under-reported areas, potentially understating true rates in conflict zones or data-poor settings by 10-20%. Nonetheless, convergent evidence from multiple sources confirms that socioeconomic gradients causally underpin these differences, with wealthier regions achieving mortality reductions through scalable innovations like antibiotics and , while poorer areas lag due to institutional and resource constraints.

Demographic and Cause-Specific Differences

Mortality rates exhibit pronounced variation by age, with rates often exceeding 20 per 1,000 live births in low-income regions but declining sharply to under 1 per 1,000 in high-income countries by childhood, remaining low through before rising exponentially in adulthood due to cumulative physiological decline and chronic disease onset. In developed nations like the , age-specific rates for ages 5–14 stood at 14.7 per 100,000 in 2023, increasing to 76.8 for 15–24 and over 1,000 for those 85 and older, reflecting a J-shaped curve where risks stabilize or dip post-infancy before accelerating after age 50. This pattern stems from biological vulnerabilities in , reduced exposure to hazards in youth, and heightened susceptibility to degenerative conditions like in later years. Sex differences contribute substantially to mortality disparities, with males experiencing higher all-cause rates across most age groups globally, resulting in a female advantage of approximately 5 years as of recent estimates. Male is particularly stark from ages 15–40, where rates can reach three times female levels, driven primarily by external causes such as injuries, accidents, suicides, and homicides rather than infectious or chronic diseases. In 2021, males accounted for 56.2% of global deaths under age 25, rising to over 64% in regions like , attributable to behavioral risks including higher rates of , alcohol use, and risk-taking activities. Biological factors, such as genetic protections against certain infections in s and hormonal influences on cardiovascular resilience, interact with these modifiable behaviors to sustain the gap. Cause-specific mortality further delineates demographic patterns, as leading killers shift predictably with age and sex. For instance, among children under 5, perinatal conditions and congenital anomalies dominate globally, comprising over 50% and 24% of deaths respectively, while unintentional injuries rise in prominence for adolescents and young adults. In the U.S., heart and cancer account for the plurality of deaths in adults over 65, but accidents lead for ages 1–44, with males disproportionately affected by the latter due to vehicular and occupational hazards. Sex gaps in causes like neoplasms and heart widen the overall disparity, though external causes explain up to 30% of the difference in some populations.
Age Group (U.S., 2023)Leading Causes (Top 3)Male-Female Rate Ratio (Approx.)
1–4 yearsAccidents, congenital, 1.2:1 (higher male accidents)
15–24 yearsAccidents, , 2.5:1 (external causes)
25–64 yearsCancer, heart , accidents1.5:1 (behavioral risks)
65+ yearsHeart , cancer, 1.3:1 (chronic diseases)
This table illustrates U.S. patterns, where male excesses amplify in younger cohorts via preventable causes, while age-related diseases equalize ratios somewhat in senescence; global trends mirror this but with greater infectious disease burden in youth from developing regions. Racial and ethnic variations, such as elevated rates among Black Americans (884 per 100,000 age-adjusted in recent data versus 332 for multiracial groups), often tie to socioeconomic confounders but show cause-specific elevations in cardiovascular and homicide deaths. These differences underscore causal interplay between inherent vulnerabilities and environmental exposures, informing targeted interventions without overattributing to systemic narratives absent empirical support.

Excess Mortality in Crises

Excess mortality in crises denotes the excess number of deaths observed during acute disruptions—such as pandemics, wars, and famines—beyond those expected from baseline trends adjusted for , age structure, and seasonal patterns. This metric captures both direct causes (e.g., or ) and indirect effects (e.g., , overwhelmed medical systems, or ), often revealing multipliers of 5–50 times normal rates in severely affected regions. Calculation typically involves statistical models like on historical vital records, though retrospective estimates for pre-modern eras rely on demographic reconstructions from registers, censuses, and archaeological data, introducing uncertainties from incomplete reporting. The (1347–1351), caused by , exemplifies pandemic-induced excess, killing an estimated 30–50% of Europe's population, or 25–50 million people, through bubonic and transmission facilitated by trade routes and poor sanitation. Excess rates peaked at near-total mortality in isolated communities, with survivors showing genetic adaptations like CCR5-Δ32 variants conferring partial resistance in later generations. This event halved urban populations in places like , where tax records indicate a 60–70% decline from 1347 to 1351. The 1918–1919 A(H1N1) pandemic generated approximately 50 million global excess deaths, including 675,000 in the United States, with mortality concentrated in young adults due to bacterial superinfections and storms, yielding crude rates up to 256 per 100,000 weekly in peak U.S. cities. Global estimates derive from vital statistics in 20+ countries, revealing higher burdens in indigenous and overcrowded populations, such as 20–40% excess in some Pacific islands. Non-pharmaceutical interventions like school closures reduced peak rates by up to 50% in compliant areas, per city-level analyses. Wars amplify excess through combat, reprisals, and secondary crises; (1939–1945) accounted for 70–85 million deaths worldwide—about 3% of the 1940 global population of 2.3 billion—including 15 million battle fatalities and 45–50 million civilian excess from bombings, executions (6 million Jews), and famines like the Bengal crisis (2–3 million). Soviet excess reached 20–27 million, blending military losses with starvation under sieges and deportations. Famine crises, such as China's (1959–1961), produced 23–30 million excess deaths from policy-induced grain shortfalls and coerced collectivization, with rates exceeding 10% annually in rural provinces, disproportionately affecting infants and the elderly via and infectious overlays. Patterns across crises show skewing toward vulnerable demographics: children and frail adults in famines, working-age males in wars, and all ages in pandemics, with multipliers greatest in low-resource settings due to absent redundancies in , , or mobility. Recovery phases often feature compensatory fertility surges and selection effects, elevating post-crisis in survivors, as observed after where U.S. rates rebounded 5–10 years faster than pre-pandemic trends. Empirical debates persist on attribution, with peer-reviewed models emphasizing causal chains over correlations, countering narrative-driven undercounts in state-controlled data.

Controversies and Empirical Debates

COVID-19 Era Excess Deaths

Excess deaths during the COVID-19 era, spanning roughly 2020 to 2023, represent deviations above pre-pandemic mortality baselines, capturing both direct viral impacts and indirect consequences such as healthcare disruptions and policy responses. The World Health Organization (WHO) modeled 14.9 million excess deaths globally for 2020-2021, exceeding reported COVID-19 fatalities by a factor of about 2.7 to 1. These estimates, derived from statistical modeling of all-cause mortality data across member states, highlight undercounting in official COVID-19 tallies due to diagnostic limitations and varying reporting standards, though they also encompass non-viral contributors. Independent analyses, such as those aggregating national vital statistics, suggest the global toll extended into 2022, with excess mortality persisting even as acute waves subsided. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documented over 1.2 million excess deaths from 2020 through mid-2023, with weekly estimates showing spikes aligned with surges but also elevated non-respiratory causes like cardiovascular events and unintentional injuries. For instance, provisional data indicate that was listed on death certificates for only about 76,000 cases in 2023, yet all-cause mortality remained 10-15% above baselines in many jurisdictions, pointing to deferred medical care and behavioral shifts as amplifying factors. European and other high-income settings mirrored this, with 3.1 million excess deaths across 47 Western countries from 2020-2022, including 808,000 in 2022 after most restrictions lifted. Attribution of these excesses remains debated, with indicating a substantial portion stemmed from indirect effects rather than the alone. Analyses of U.S. data reveal across nearly all non-COVID causes, including a 20-30% rise in deaths from heart disease and during peak periods, linked to avoided routine screenings and admissions. Similarly, international studies attribute sustained post-2020 excesses—predominantly non-COVID—to pandemic responses, such as disrupting services and increasing vulnerabilities to chronic conditions and crises. stringency correlated with higher non-viral mortality in some cross-country comparisons, as mobility restrictions delayed treatments and exacerbated isolation-related harms like overdoses and suicides, though is complicated by viral spread. Critics of predominant narratives, drawing on vital statistics discrepancies, argue that official attributions overemphasize direct COVID effects while understating iatrogenic harms from interventions, with excess-to-reported ratios varying widely by reporting rigor and political context. In regions with less stringent measures, such as parts of , excess mortality rates were lower relative to GDP peers, suggesting policy trade-offs influenced outcomes beyond baseline . By 2023-2025, residual excesses in select countries underscore long-term fallout, including potential undercounted COVID deaths misclassified as natural causes, yet analyses consistently affirm multifaceted causality over singular viral dominance.

Attribution Disputes: Interventions vs. Underlying Causes

In historical analyses of mortality declines during the 19th and early 20th centuries in , Thomas McKeown argued that reductions in infectious disease mortality, which accounted for most of the , were primarily driven by improvements in and living standards rather than specific medical interventions or measures like . McKeown's examination of vital statistics from 1848 to 1950 showed that declines in , for instance, preceded the widespread use of antibiotics and occurred alongside rising food consumption, suggesting socioeconomic enhancements as the dominant causal factor. Critics, however, contended that McKeown undervalued the contributions of sanitary reforms, such as and systems implemented from the mid-19th century, which demonstrably reduced waterborne diseases like by orders of magnitude in urban areas. This debate underscores a broader tension in attributing 20th-century mortality reductions: the relative weight of biomedical interventions versus underlying socioeconomic and behavioral shifts. For cardiovascular diseases, which drove much of the post-1950 gains in developed nations, evidence indicates that pharmacological treatments like statins and antihypertensives, alongside procedural innovations such as , averted millions of deaths; U.S. data from 1968 to 2017 attribute over 50% of the 46% male mortality decline to heart disease reductions via these means. Yet, parallel declines in prevalence—from 42% of U.S. adults in 1965 to 14% by 2019—correlated with halved coronary mortality rates independent of medical adoption, implying behavioral and public awareness campaigns as key underlying drivers rather than therapeutic interventions alone. Empirical decompositions of changes from 1950 to 2010 across high-income countries further reveal that reductions in ischemic heart disease mortality stemmed roughly equally from prevention (e.g., diet and ) and treatment, challenging narratives that overemphasize clinical advances while downplaying causal preconditions like rising incomes that enabled both. In contemporary contexts, such as the , attribution disputes intensify over policy interventions like lockdowns and versus underlying factors including prior immunity, demographics, and iatrogenic harms. Comparative analyses estimate that stringent lockdowns averted deaths at a societal cost 50 to 466 times higher per prevented fatality than vaccination campaigns, with non-COVID mortality from deferred care and economic disruption potentially offsetting intervention benefits in some regions. Peer-reviewed studies across Western countries from 2020 to 2022 document persistent elevations—totaling over 3 million above baselines—despite interventions, raising questions about unaddressed underlying causes like delayed diagnostics and metabolic comorbidities exacerbated by isolation, rather than direct viral attribution alone. These conflicts highlight institutional tendencies in literature to prioritize intervention , potentially overlooking causal realism in favor of policy vindication, as evidenced by selective modeling that assumes uniform intervention impacts without robust controls for preexisting trends.

Measurement Manipulation and Narrative Influences

Changes in definitional criteria and coding practices can significantly alter reported mortality rates, often independent of underlying epidemiological realities. , the introduction of a pregnancy-related on death certificates starting in 2003, with expanded use by 2018, contributed to an apparent rise in maternal mortality rates; a of 2018-2021 data found that excluding checkbox-identified cases without clinical evidence of pregnancy-related causation resulted in stable or declining rates, indicating overestimation by factors up to threefold in some years.00005-X/fulltext) Similarly, revisions to cause-of-death classification in 2018 by the recalibrated the maternal mortality rate to 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for that year, highlighting how methodological shifts can create illusory trends that influence policy debates. Underreporting of deaths occurs systematically in contexts of limited capacity or political incentives, leading to understated mortality rates. During the , countries with low healthcare capacity, measured by available beds, underreported deaths by an of 52.5%, while those implementing stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions exhibited a 58.6% underreporting probability, as evidenced by discrepancies between official counts and estimates derived from all-cause data. In the United States, New York State's health department under Andrew Cuomo undercounted nursing home deaths by up to 50% from April 2020 to February 2021, attributing omissions to exclusion of post-transfer fatalities despite policy directives admitting infected patients into facilities. Such manipulations often stem from institutional pressures to align statistics with prevailing policy narratives, as seen in misclassification of over 55% of police-related deaths between 1980 and 2018 in national vital statistics, where external causes were recoded to obscure custodial responsibility. Media narratives exacerbate distortions by prioritizing sensational over mundane mortality risks, fostering misperceptions that diverge from empirical distributions. A comparative analysis of U.S. coverage from 2018-2022 against CDC rates revealed significant underrepresentation of chronic conditions like heart disease (coverage 12% vs. actual 20% of ) and overemphasis on rare events such as mass shootings, correlating with political leanings of outlets—left-leaning media amplified climate-related risks despite their minimal contribution (under 0.01% of ). This bias extends globally, with misrepresenting ; a 1997 study quantified how reports exaggerated relative risks from and AIDS while downplaying ischemic heart disease, the leading killer, potentially skewing priorities toward low-probability threats. media aggregates further inflate perceived global mortality, reporting figures consistently higher than official annual rates, as analyzed in a 2025 content review of thousands of articles. Institutional biases in academia and mainstream outlets, often aligned with progressive ideologies, amplify narratives of rising "systemic" mortality (e.g., uncritically endorsing pre-2024 maternal trends) while downplaying artifacts or counterevidence, as critiqued in post-hoc evaluations.

Applications and Implications

Economic and Actuarial Uses

In , mortality rates form the basis for constructing s, which quantify the probability of death at each age, denoted as qxq_x, to price policies and annuities. These tables, derived from empirical data, enable insurers to calculate premiums that reflect expected claims while ensuring ; for instance, the U.S. Social Security Administration's 2022 period uses recent mortality to project probabilities across ages. Actuaries adjust for factors like age, , and status, with revisions occurring periodically—such as the Internal Revenue Service's tables updated approximately every decade to incorporate new mortality trends. The ' 2025 mortality study provides tables compliant with Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 27 for pension and insurance applications, emphasizing credible data over outdated assumptions. For pension funds and annuities, elevated mortality rates reduce liabilities by shortening expected payout durations, but unexpected improvements in longevity—observed in recent decades—increase reserves needed; a 2023 analysis showed worsening adult mortality could lower life annuity costs but raise term life insurance premiums due to higher claim probabilities. Actuaries employ cohort-specific tables to forecast these dynamics, incorporating projections like annual mortality improvements (e.g., 1-2% reductions per year in advanced economies), which directly influence funding ratios and contribution rates. Economically, mortality rates inform human capital models, where higher rates diminish incentives for and investments, as individuals discount future amid shorter lifespans; from global panels indicates that a one-year increase in (inverse of mortality) boosts accumulation and per capita GDP growth by enhancing schooling returns. In workforce projections, elevated working-age mortality shrinks labor supply, reducing GDP; a RAND analysis found that a 10% rise in the population aged 60+ (linked to prior low mortality) slows per capita GDP growth by 5.5%, with two-thirds attributable to labor force contraction rather than declines. Preventable deaths further quantify losses: U.S. estimates project $11.2 trillion in cumulative economic output forgone from amenable mortality between 2015 and 2030, reflecting foregone wages and innovation. These metrics guide , such as valuing mortality reductions in cost-benefit analyses for interventions, prioritizing causal reductions over correlational trends.

Policy Evaluation and Human Capital Impacts

Vaccination programs represent one of the most empirically validated interventions for reducing mortality rates, with global efforts averting an estimated 154 million deaths over the past 50 years, equivalent to six lives saved per minute since 1974. These gains account for nearly half of the worldwide decline in rates, particularly in low-income regions where vaccines against , , and pertussis have driven the majority of improvements. In the United States, routine childhood immunizations for cohorts born 1994–2023 prevented over 500 million illnesses and 1 million deaths, yielding a net economic benefit exceeding $540 billion in direct medical savings and productivity gains. Evaluations of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the , such as lockdowns, indicate more limited efficacy in altering all-cause mortality trajectories. A of 24 studies found that stringent lockdowns in and the during spring 2020 reduced mortality by an average of only 0.2%, with no significant effects on overall excess deaths in cross-country comparisons. Similarly, statewide lockdowns in the U.S. in 2020 showed no statistically significant reduction in mortality rates, despite substantial disruptions to economic activity and healthcare access that contributed to increases in non-COVID deaths from conditions like and injuries. These findings underscore the challenges in attributing mortality reductions to broad restrictions, as underlying factors such as demographics and pre-existing trends often dominate outcomes. Higher mortality rates erode by truncating productive lifespans and diminishing incentives for long-term investments in and skills. Empirical models demonstrate that a one-year increase in correlates with greater accumulation, as extended horizons encourage deferred gratification and , contributing to sustained transitions. Premature mortality, quantified in , imposes direct costs on economies; for instance, U.S. analyses link elevated death rates among working-age adults to structural losses in and capacity. In developing contexts, reductions in under-5 mortality through human capital-enhancing policies like improved maternal have amplified these effects, lowering rates from 1994–2023 levels while bolstering intergenerational transmission. The interplay between policy-induced mortality changes and is evident in crisis responses, where areas with higher education levels—proxies for —experienced up to 35% fewer deaths per 10 percentage-point increase in college graduates, reflecting better adherence to preventive measures and access to care. Conversely, policies failing to curb , such as those prioritizing restrictions over targeted protections, may exacerbate depletion through indirect channels like deferred healthcare, though all-cause data suggest minimal net mortality benefits from such approaches. Effective mortality-lowering strategies thus preserve by sustaining a healthier, longer-lived capable of higher output and adaptability.

Forecasting and Risk Assessment

Mortality rate forecasting relies on statistical and demographic models to project future death probabilities, incorporating historical data, age structures, and covariates such as socioeconomic factors. The Lee–Carter model, a foundational approach developed in 1992, decomposes log mortality rates into age-specific patterns and temporal trends via , allowing for probabilistic predictions of and population aging. Extensions include ensemble averaging methods that ensure age-coherent forecasts by weighting multiple models, reducing projection errors in multi-population settings. Parametric, principal component, and smoothing techniques further refine projections by imposing constraints on trends, particularly useful for regions with sparse data. In actuarial , models like period and cohort life tables, maintained by bodies such as the , quantify longevity and mortality risks for insurance pricing and pension solvency. These incorporate cause-specific decompositions to isolate drivers like or infectious outbreaks, enabling simulations of volatility, trend deviations, and catastrophic events. and generalized linear models extend this to individual-level predictions, integrating variables such as age, comorbidities, and lifestyle, with recent advancements blending for enhanced accuracy in . Epidemiological forecasting emphasizes short-term horizons, using time-series methods like or variants to anticipate seasonal peaks and crisis surges, as in all-cause mortality predictions one month ahead via bootstrapped intervals. Hybrid approaches combining classical models with neural networks improve handling of nonlinear patterns, particularly for cause-deleted rates during events like pandemics. Risk assessment at population levels evaluates vulnerabilities through multivariable frameworks, factoring in economic, behavioral, and environmental influences; for example, models predict elevated mortality from extremes by linking to excess deaths. tools, such as those in clinical settings, stratify patients by integrating electronic health records, though performance hinges on and cohort representativeness. Forecasts face challenges including poor generalizability across geographies and demographics, with U.S.-derived models often underperforming in non-Western contexts due to unmodeled structural differences. Unforeseen shocks, data limitations in high-mortality regimes, and decelerating cohort gains—evident in projections showing stalled improvements post-2010—underscore the need for scenario-based sensitivity analyses. Over-reliance on historical trends risks underestimating reversals from policy shifts or behavioral changes, necessitating robust validation against out-of-sample data.

References

  1. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section3.html
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547668/
  3. https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-the-crude-death-rate-and-how-is-it-calculated/
  4. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN
  5. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates
  6. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
  7. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db521.htm
  8. https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20251013/study-global-mortality-rate-down-67-from-1950-to-2023
  9. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
  10. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf
  11. https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/41
  12. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN
  13. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/death-rate
  14. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/mortality-dashboard.htm
  15. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/sources-definitions/age-adjustment.htm
  16. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/e-learning/epidemiology/specialists/standardisation
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3406211/
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233196/
  19. https://ibis.doh.nm.gov/resource/SMR_ISR.html
  20. https://www.statsdirect.com/help/rates/smr.htm
  21. https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/78
  22. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/13357
  23. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_03.pdf
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8855998/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/specific-mortality
  26. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/infant-mortality-rate
  27. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr74/nvsr74-07.pdf
  28. https://www-doh.nj.gov/doh-shad/contentfile/sharedstatic/CauseSpecificDeathRate.pdf
  29. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/health-nutrition-and-population-statistics/series/SP.DYN.AMRT.MA
  30. https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/health/documents/topics/healthstatistics/statistical-resources/understandinghealthstats/documents/Definitions_of_Rates_Used_in_Public_Health_Assessment.pdf
  31. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7404362/
  33. https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054
  34. https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php
  35. https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-child-surviving-infancy-1789124
  36. https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/why-did-people-die-danger-medieval-period-life-expectancy/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7186836/
  38. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/nber_h0134.pdf?abstractid=1842952
  39. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=28151&section=2.2
  40. https://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7611108/
  42. https://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/mortalitymanchester/
  43. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-4498-4_8
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/mortality-decline
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/th-century-infant-mortality-rates-for-a-number-of-European-countries_fig1_26465837
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2625386/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X06002221
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.70021
  49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1972322
  50. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6422600/
  52. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm
  53. https://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/why-do-death-rates-decline
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314254/
  55. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/child-mortality-and-causes-of-death
  56. https://population.un.org/wpp/
  57. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024850118
  58. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240068759
  59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571924/
  60. https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/gbd
  61. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/civil-registration-and-vital-statistics
  62. https://www.who.int/data/data-collection-tools/who-mortality-database
  63. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/crvs/
  64. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm
  65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219884/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8403260/
  67. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol50/38/50-38.pdf
  68. https://www.vitalstrategies.org/programs/civil-registration-and-vital-statistics/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10680112/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X23000653
  71. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/36/3/651/1860376/dym108.pdf
  72. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/international-programs/stic/measuring-child-mortality.pdf
  73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571933/
  74. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/sources-definitions/rate.htm
  75. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/technical/TP2011-2_MortEstMajorSampSurv.pdf
  76. https://demographicestimation.iussp.org/content/estimation-adult-mortality-sibling-histories
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1904216/
  78. https://www.unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/53rd-session/documents/BG-3a-potential-census-survey-adult-mortality-covid-E.pdf
  79. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol46/22/46-22.pdf
  80. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/desa_pd_2024_tp_estimating_age_sex_specific_adult_mortality.pdf
  81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220916/
  82. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119597568.ch15
  83. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9822143/
  84. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol50/28/50-28.pdf
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8333270/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5976169/
  87. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197047
  88. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/under-five-mortality/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854121/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729428/
  91. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/08/up-to-8-million-deaths-occur-in-low-and-middle-income-countries-yearly-due-to-poor-quality-health-care-says-new-report
  92. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/ghe2019_cod_methods.pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9159332/
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8990542/
  95. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol51/37/51-37.pdf
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667319321000124
  97. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/world/africa/africa-coronavirus-deaths-underreporting.html
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11812554/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877584525000103
  100. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0075-3
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4360127/
  102. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51669-5
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283982/
  104. https://ourworldindata.org/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men
  105. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2010588118
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8096404/
  107. https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41118-022-00171-9
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4833145/
  109. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.20.649385v2
  110. https://pandem-ic.org/the-global-mortality-distribution-the-role-of-demography/
  111. https://www.prb.org/resources/the-gender-gap-in-u-s-mortality/
  112. https://ourworldindata.org/demographic-transition
  113. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2513561
  114. https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/us-college-graduates-live-average-11-years-longer-those-who
  115. https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/longevity-boosting-power-education
  116. https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n604
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10904266/
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335524001578
  119. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/50/3/931/6082777
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11312224/
  121. https://ngmiller.people.stanford.edu/publications/historical-health-improvement/role-public-health-improvements-health-advances-20th
  122. https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2024-global-immunization-efforts-have-saved-at-least-154-million-lives-over-the-past-50-years
  123. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2824%2900850-X/fulltext
  124. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7331a2.htm
  125. https://ourworldindata.org/antibiotics
  126. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6502471/
  128. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/b36d5850-7d37-5a13-a77e-df8d1a144718
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10398270/
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6827626/
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1169360/
  132. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2021number3/public-health-efforts-and-us-mortality-transition
  133. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.70010
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4056770/
  135. https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts
  136. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/seat-belts
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624001400
  138. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-%28outdoor%29-air-quality-and-health
  139. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2822%2900090-0/fulltext
  140. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/estimated-126-million-deaths-each-year-are-attributable-unhealthy
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5332172/
  142. https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-health-effects-air-pollution
  143. https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death
  144. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2839493
  145. https://data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2024/
  146. https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/library/global-age-sex-specific-mortality-life-expectancy-and-population
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10522776/
  148. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK600454/table/ch2.tab4/
  149. https://wisqars.cdc.gov/pdfs/leading-causes-of-death-by-age-group_2023_508.pdf
  150. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/leading-causes-of-death.htm
  151. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death
  152. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr039.pdf
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7852240/
  154. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705460105
  155. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death
  156. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2769236
  157. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0610941104
  158. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127087/
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279717306828
  160. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-the-COVID-19-pandemic
  161. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05522-2
  162. https://www.who.int/data/sets/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-modelled-estimates
  163. https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
  164. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
  165. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7331a1.htm
  166. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
  167. https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12145281/
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9304075/
  170. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/54/3/dyaf075/8159616
  171. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000260
  172. https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/8/e006653
  173. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45934-2
  174. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308136
  175. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/new-analysis-reveals-many-excess-deaths-attributed-to-natural-causes-are-actually-uncounted-covid-19-deaths/
  176. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2834281
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447153/
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447154/
  179. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/34556/
  180. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circresaha.116.309115
  181. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0089-x
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9413824/
  183. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13385-024-00400-9
  184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32510319/
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8354784/
  186. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/nyregion/nursing-home-deaths-cuomo-covid.html
  187. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1041989880/deaths-caused-by-police-misclassified
  188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624009961
  189. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.87.5.842
  190. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.22.25326092v1.full
  191. https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die-from
  192. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mortality-table.asp
  193. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
  194. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/actuarial-tables
  195. https://www.soa.org/resources/announcements/press-releases/2025/2025-mortality-study/
  196. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176523004500
  197. https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/actuaries-seek-better-data-on-troubling-80-mortality-trend
  198. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10092450/
  199. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1094202518302175
  200. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR1000/WR1063-1/RAND_WR1063-1.pdf
  201. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1233
  202. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/childhood-vaccination-has-saved-millions-of-lives-but-rising-hesitancy-could-reverse-decades-of-progress/
  203. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-024-01216-7
  204. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/jhisae/0200.html
  205. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9426308/
  206. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8083719/
  207. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370%2820%2930208-X/fulltext
  208. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282805775014380
  209. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00036846.2025.2526182?af=R
  210. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5426916
  211. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32346/w32346.pdf
  212. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12889-024-18377-1.pdf?utm_source=consensus
  213. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13947/w13947.pdf
  214. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207022001455
  215. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/astin-bulletin-journal-of-the-iaa/article/forecasting-mortality-rates-with-a-coherent-ensemble-averaging-approach/00AFDF6884D321EEE6DF99A471D3DC8E
  216. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol41/38/41-38.pdf
  217. https://www.soa.org/research/tables-calcs-tools/
  218. https://www.soa.org/4b140c/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2019/cod-mortality-forecasting.pdf
  219. https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/article/multivariable-mortality-modeling-survival-analysis-and-machine-learning
  220. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38343158/
  221. https://bnrc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42269-023-01138-2
  222. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.16266v1
  223. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10715621/
  224. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9931319/
  225. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2519179122
  226. https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41118-018-0042-x
  227. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/presentations/ocact_20220331.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.