↓ Skip to main content

Theoretical estimation of maximum human lifespan

Overview of attention for article published in Biogerontology, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 705)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
17 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Theoretical estimation of maximum human lifespan
Published in
Biogerontology, June 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10522-008-9156-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byung Mook Weon, Jung Ho Je

Abstract

The existence of maximum human lifespan remains a puzzle in aging research. Maximum human lifespan is believed to be around 125 years, whereas current demographic trends seem to show no limitation. To reconcile this contrast, the estimation of maximum human lifespan requires an adequate mathematical model. However, sparse data of available old-age mortality pattern make the estimation impossible. Here we suggest an extended Weibull model for the estimation using a proper mathematical method based on survival probability pattern. We find a tendency that survival probability is maximized in modern human survival curves. Based on such tendency, we develop an estimation method for maximum human lifespan and indeed obtain about 126 years from periodic life tables for Swedish female between 1950 and 2005. Despite uncertainty from available mortality data, our approach may offer quantitative biodemographic opportunities linking aging and survival kinetics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Materials Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2023.
All research outputs
#982,363
of 24,795,084 outputs
Outputs from Biogerontology
#26
of 705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,953
of 90,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biogerontology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,795,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them