, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 439–454 | Cite as

The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality

  • James W. Vaupel
  • Kenneth G. Manton
  • Eric Stallard


Life table methods are developed for populations whose members differ in their endowment for longevity. Unlike standard methods, which ignore such heterogeneity, these methods use different calculations to construct cohort, period, and individual life tables. The results imply that standard methods overestimate current life expectancy and potential gains in life expectancy from health and safety interventions, while underestimating rates of individual aging, past progress in reducing mortality, and mortality differentials between pairs of populations. Calculations based on Swedish mortality data suggest that these errors may be important, especially in old age.


Life Table Mortality Differential Cumulative Hazard Cohort Mortality Individual Mortality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Keyfitz, N. 1978. Improving Life Expectancy: An Uphill Road Ahead. American Journal of Public Health 10:954–956.Google Scholar
  2. Manton, K. G., and E. Stallard. 1979. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Stochastic Compartment Model of Cancer Latency: Lung Cancer Mortality Among White Females in the U.S. In press: Computers and Bio-Medical Research.Google Scholar
  3. Manton, K. G., E. Stallard, and J. W. Vaupel. 1979. Explaining the Black-White Mortality Crossover: A Model of Selection on Heterogeneous Populations. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  4. Nam, C. B., and K. A. Okay. 1977. Factors Contributing to the Mortality Crossover Pattern. XVII General Conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  5. Shepard, D. S., and R. J. Zeckhauser. 1975. The Assessment of Programs to Prolong Life, Recognizing Their Interaction with Risk Factors. Discussion paper 32-D, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. — 1977. Heterogeneity Among Patients As a Risk Factor in Surgical Decision-Making. In J. P. Bunker et al. (ed.), Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Surgery. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Strehler, B. L. 1977. Time, Cells, and Aging. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Thornton, R. G., and C. B. Nam. 1972. The Lower Mortality Rates of Non-Whites at the Older Ages: An Enigma in Demographic Analysis. Research Reports in Social Science 11:1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Tolley, H. D., D. Burdick, K. G. Manton, and E. Stallard. 1978. A Compartment Model Approach to the Estimation of Tumor Incidence and Growth: Investigation of a Model of Cancer Latency. Biometrics 34: 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Vaupel, J. W. 1976. Early Death: An American Tragedy. Law and Contemporary Problems 4:73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. —, K. G. Manton, and E. Stallard. 1979. What Demographic Difference Does It Make That the Frail Die First?: A Model of Mortality and Some Suggestive Results Based on Swedish Mortality Since 1778. Working Paper 179, Institute of Policy Sciences and Public Affairs, Duke University, Durham, N.C.Google Scholar
  12. Woodbury, M. A., and Manton, K. G. 1977. A Random Walk Model of Human Mortality and Aging. Theoretical Population Biology 11:37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Vaupel
    • 1
  • Kenneth G. Manton
    • 2
  • Eric Stallard
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Policy Sciences and Public AffairsDuke UniversityDurham
  2. 2.Center for Demographic StudiesDuke UniversityDurham

Personalised recommendations