To test MAT’s accuracy, Biosignia conducted a retrospective study of
311,535 actual life insurance cases.
MAT reclassified almost half the policies previously issued using
conventional underwriting methods.
The risk assessments generated by the two methods were then compared
with actual mortality experience. For the 52% of cases to which MAT and
conventional underwriting assigned the same level of risk, both methods
were equally accurate. However, for the 48% of cases in which the two
assessments differed, MAT was significantly more accurate. By correctly
identifying individuals at both greater and lesser risk than normally
expected, MAT’s classifications closely mirrored actual experience.
