| id |
f56b9f91-f8e9-4170-a4a8-a0c1aec0e02e |
| user_id |
8684964a-bab1-4235-93a8-5fd5e24a1d0a |
| job_id |
gedbggrj-1228 |
| base_model_name |
xevyo |
| base_model_path |
/home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/xevyo-bas /home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/xevyo-base-v1/merged_fp16_hf... |
| model_name |
The rise in the number |
| model_desc |
The rise in the number longevity data |
| model_path |
/home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj- /home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj-1228/merged_fp16_hf... |
| source_model_name |
xevyo |
| source_model_path |
/home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/xevyo-bas /home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/xevyo-base-v1/merged_fp16_hf... |
| source_job_id |
xevyo-base-v1 |
| dataset_desc |
This research article examines an important parado This research article examines an important paradox in modern public health: as medical treatments improve and more people survive serious diseases, overall life expectancy may increase more slowly. The paper focuses on Sweden (1994–2016) and studies five major diseases—myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, colon cancer, and breast cancer—to understand how survival improvements and rising disease prevalence interact to shape national life expectancy.
Using complete Swedish population-register data, the authors show that medical advances have significantly improved survival after major diseases. However, because these survivors still have higher long-term mortality than people who never had the disease, the growing number of long-term survivors can partly offset the gains in national life expectancy.
This phenomenon is described as a possible “failure of success”: the success of better treatments creates a larger population living with chronic after-effects, which slows overall mortality improvement.
⭐ MAIN FINDINGS
⭐ 1. Survival Improved Dramatically—Especially for Heart Attacks & Stroke
From 1994 to 2016:
Survival after myocardial infarction and stroke improved the most.
These two diseases produced the largest contributions to increased life expectancy.
Most gains came from improved short-term survival (first 3 years after diagnosis).
The rise in the number
Hip fractures, colon cancer, and breast cancer contributed much less to life expectancy growth.
⭐ 2. BUT… More People Than Ever Are Living With Disease Histories
Because fewer patients die immediately after diagnosis:
“Distant cases” (long-term survivors) increased sharply across all diseases.
The proportion of disease-free older adults decreased.
Survivors carry higher mortality risks for the rest of their lives.
This means the composition of the older population has shifted toward people with chronic disease histories who live longer—but still die sooner than people who never had the disease.
⭐ 3. Growing Disease Prevalence Slows Life Expectancy Gains
Even though survival is better, the higher number of survivors creates a population with:
more chronic illness
more long-term complications
higher late-life mortality
For several diseases, this negatively affected national life expectancy trends:
For stroke, improved survival was almost completely cancelled out by rising prevalence of long-term survivors.
For breast cancer, the benefit of improved survival was nearly halved by the increasing number of survivors.
Colon cancer and hip fracture survivors also contributed small negative effects.
The rise in the number
⭐ 4. Myocardial Infarction Is the Main Driver of Life Expectancy Growth
For men:
Improved survival after heart attacks contributed 1.61 years to the national life expectancy gain (≈49%).
For women:
It contributed 0.93 years (≈48%).
The rise in the number
This made heart-attack treatment improvements the single largest contributor to Sweden’s longevity gains during the study period.
⭐ 5. The Key Mechanism
The study shows national life expectancy changes depend on two forces:
A. Improved survival after disease → increases life expectancy
B. Growing number of long-term survivors with higher mortality → slows life expectancy
When (B) becomes large enough, it reduces the effect of (A).
⭐ OVERALL CONCLUSION
The article concludes that:
Medical progress has greatly improved survival after major diseases.
But because survivors remain at higher mortality risk, their increasing numbers partially slow national life expectancy gains.
This effect is small but significant—and will become more important as populations age and survival continues improving.
Failure to consider population composition may lead to misinterpreting life expectancy trends.
Prevention of disease (reducing new cases) is just as important as improving survival.
This study provides a new demographic insight:
➡️ Long-term survivors improve individual lives but can slow national-level longevity trends.... |
| dataset_meta |
{"num_examples": 136, "bad_lines": {"num_examples": 136, "bad_lines": 0}... |
| dataset_path |
/home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj- /home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj-1228/data/gedbggrj-1228.json... |
| training_output |
null |
| status |
completed |
| created_at |
1764398246 |
| updated_at |
1764398551 |
| source_adapter_path |
NULL |
| adapter_path |
/home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj- /home/sid/tuning/finetune/backend/output/gedbggrj-1228/adapter... |
| plugged_in |
False |