X-Message-Number: 26793 From: "Brent Fox" <> Subject: Re: Predicted Cryonics Institute patients to 2044 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:15:32 -0400 Re: Predicted Cryonics Institute patients to 2044 In CryoNet Message #26782 David Stodolsky wrote: >The earlier years were eliminated, >because the slope of the line on a log plot was clearly different >from that starting in 1990. However, it doesn't appear that including >that data would make much difference (note that the Predicted for >earlier years is reasonable). The more historical data that is incorporated would provide a more accurate forecast. >The patients received from ACS are excluded, since we don't know >their year of suspension and the growth curve for ACS may have been >different, in any case. The inclusion of ACS patients should be no different than a last minute signup/suspension. ACS is a separate organization and the suspension dates would be irrelevant in regards as to when CI accepted the patients. >I looked at few other models. The cubic >function appeared to be better than a quadratic. However, the >straight line on the log plot indicated an exponential relationship >is most likely. In running just the limited historical data from 1990 (being fair to David, excluding the ACS patients acquired in 2004), and projecting to 2050 yields a more realistic view, and supports a Quadratic Trend growth model. The Exponential Growth Model promoted fails accuracy measures (MAPE, MAD, MSD) compared with the Quadratic Trend model. Exponential Trend MAPE = 12.6888 MAD = 2.7658 MSD = 12.4225 Quadratic Trend MAPE 4.95273 MAD 0.85361 MSD 1.10717 Results of Quadratic Trend model using limited data (1990 - 2004 w/exclusion of ACS patients - for comparison purposes in data used by David Stodolsky) from 2005 <period 16> to 2050. Period Forecast 16 61.914 17 67.750 18 73.848 19 80.209 20 86.833 21 93.719 22 100.868 23 108.279 24 115.953 25 123.889 26 132.089 27 140.550 28 149.275 29 158.262 30 167.511 31 177.024 32 186.798 33 196.836 34 207.136 35 217.698 36 228.524 37 239.611 38 250.962 39 262.575 40 274.450 41 286.589 42 298.989 43 311.653 44 324.579 45 337.768 46 351.219 47 364.933 48 378.909 49 393.148 50 407.650 51 422.414 52 437.441 53 452.731 54 468.283 55 484.097 56 500.175 57 516.515 58 533.117 59 549.982 60 567.110 61 584.500 >While this data may be useful in sizing organizational capacity, >additional data, of a longitudinal type, is needed if models are to >be helpful in marketing. Thus, it would be desirable to know, for >each patient; when did they first contact the organization, when did >they become a member, when did they request sign up papers, and when >did they complete all arrangements, etc. Some demographic background >(age, sex, income, etc.) could also be useful in targeting a >marketing effort. I agree with this. It would also be beneficial if CI would release Suspension Member figures by year since CI's inception. This would enable an accurate model of Suspension Membership to be determined, as opposed to a generalized membership (organizational combined with suspension membership) growth model. Best regards to all, Brent Fox Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26793