If you are checking where the rate changes most, the answer is not one isolated age band — the 2023 estimate rises across adulthood and stays near its maximum through the three oldest measured bands.

You found an age chart and want to know whether the pattern for other mental disorders fits your age.

In the 2023 estimate for Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, the rate rises from childhood into midlife, then stays near its highest level through later measured ages.

The GBD 2023 Results tool records both people living with these disorders and their total disease burden. Those measures answer different questions, so the age pattern needs careful reading.

The short answer: the estimate starts at 61.1 per 100,000 for ages 10–14, reaches 2,689 per 100,000 at ages 50–54, and remains close to that level at ages 55–59 and 60–64.

Before the sections open, the figures this page stands on — each one carrying its own source.

What does the age pattern show?

You arrived with one regional age comparison in mind, and the first result is a clear change across the measured bands.

The prevalence rate rises from 61.1 per 100,000 at ages 10–14 to 415 per 100,000 at ages 15–19.

It then reaches 1,032 per 100,000 at ages 20–24.

After that, each adult band carries a higher recorded rate through ages 45–49.

The rate reaches 2,654 per 100,000 there, then 2,689 per 100,000 at ages 50–54.

Later ages remain close to that high point. The rate is 2,694 per 100,000 at ages 55–59 and 2,684 per 100,000 at ages 60–64.

That answers the main age question at the level of the regional estimate. The chart does not show one person’s diagnosis or explain why the rate changes.

Seven age bands make the broad pattern easier to see.

Pick the line closest to the age you are trying to understand, then compare the two measures rather than reading one number alone.

The table shows a rise from the youngest band into adulthood, followed by a narrow range across the later adult bands. It gives a population pattern, not a personal prediction.

How does prevalence change from ages 10–14 to 60–64?

Your place on the age chart matters because the early bands differ sharply from the adult bands.

For ages 10–14, the estimate covers about 17,000 people living with other mental disorders. The prevalence rate for that group is 61.1 per 100,000.

At ages 15–19, the estimate reaches about 102,000 people and 415 per 100,000.

The next band, ages 20–24, reaches about 239,000 people and 1,032 per 100,000.

The count and rate both rise across those first three bands.

They still describe different things: the count gives an estimated number of people, while the rate places the estimate against the population size.

By ages 25–29, the estimate reaches about 397,000 people and 1,627 per 100,000.

Ages 30–34 reach about 638,000 people and 2,098 per 100,000.

For the reader checking an adult age band, those figures place the sharpest rise before ages 35–39. The rate then continues upward more slowly.

The age pattern therefore has two parts. It rises quickly from adolescence into early adulthood, then moves through a flatter high range across later adult groups.

Thoughts arrive as first drafts. The lab below is where you edit one and feel the sentence loosen.

Which age band has the highest recorded prevalence rate?

You may be looking for one peak, especially if your age sits near the end of the chart.

The highest recorded prevalence rate in these facts is 2,694 per 100,000 for ages 55–59.

The rate for ages 50–54 is 2,689 per 100,000, and the rate for ages 60–64 is 2,684 per 100,000.

Those three figures sit close together. The chart supports a high range across ages 50–64, with the single highest value in the 55–59 band.

Ages 45–49 sit just below that range at 2,654 per 100,000.

Ages 40–44 reach 2,569 per 100,000, while ages 35–39 reach 2,405 per 100,000.

If you are reading the chart for your own age, the useful point is the shape rather than a dramatic boundary. Nearby adult bands carry similar rates.

The facts also list about 794,000 people for ages 45–49, about 725,000 for ages 50–54, about 668,000 for ages 55–59, and about 709,000 for ages 60–64.

Those counts do not move in exactly the same order as the rates. Population size affects the estimated number of people in each band.

The strongest findings underneath all of this, laid out plainly with their receipts.

The evidence behind each section, traced downward — every leaf a quote, every quote receipted.

What does disease burden add to the age comparison?

Your question changes slightly when you move from how many people live with a condition to how much total disease burden the estimate records.

The burden measure is reported in DALYs.

The facts list about 1,400 DALYs for ages 10–14, about 8,000 for ages 15–19, and about 19,000 for ages 20–24.

The recorded amount then rises to about 31,000 for ages 25–29, about 49,000 for ages 30–34, and about 64,000 for ages 35–39.

For ages 40–44, the estimate is about 63,000.

It reaches about 59,000 for ages 45–49, about 53,000 for ages 50–54, and about 48,000 for ages 55–59.

The ages 60–64 band records about 50,000 DALYs.

That is lower than the ages 35–39 estimate in this set, even though the later adult prevalence rates remain high.

This difference matters for your reading of the chart. Prevalence and DALYs are related measures, yet they do not give the same age ranking.

Look at both columns when you compare ages. A high prevalence rate can appear alongside a different total burden estimate.

You have read enough about minds in general. This one maps yours — drawn live from your answers, with a citation under every claim.

What does the adolescent evidence say?

You may be asking whether the younger age estimate means every adolescent shares the same experience. The cited adolescent study does not support that conclusion.

Among substance-abusing adolescents in treatment, 64% had at least one comorbid mental disorder, most often conduct disorder.

That finding answers a narrower question than the regional age chart.

It describes adolescents in treatment for substance abuse, while the GBD estimate covers both sexes across a large regional population.

The study’s figure therefore gives context about co-occurring disorders in a specific treatment group. It does not convert the regional prevalence rate into an individual result.

For the reader comparing age bands, the careful takeaway is simple: adolescence can involve more than one mental health condition in some clinical groups, while the regional chart reports a separate population estimate.

Those two facts can sit beside each other without proving that one caused the other. Their groups, measures, and settings differ.

The answer remains tied to the age question.

The regional estimate shows a low recorded rate at ages 10–14, a higher rate at ages 15–19, and a continued rise across adult bands.

Remember the note you left? It has been waiting for you.

How should the supporting treatment research be read?

You may see the adolescent treatment finding and wonder whether it explains the entire age pattern. It does not cover every person in the regional estimate.

The treatment study looked at adolescents who were already receiving care for substance abuse. Its finding concerns comorbidity within that selected group.

That setting matters because a treatment sample and a regional population estimate answer different research questions.

One focuses on people in a clinical group; the other reports age-specific population measures.

The study also names conduct disorder as the most common comorbid mental disorder in that adolescent sample.

The regional facts use the broader label other mental disorders and do not list the individual diagnoses behind it.

For someone reading the age chart, the study adds a boundary around interpretation. It shows why a broad category should not be treated as one single experience.

A second cited study examined female jail detainees. It found that 8% had both a current severe mental disorder and current substance use disorder.

Nearly three-quarters of those with severe mental disorders also met criteria for one or more substance use disorders.

This study concerns female detainees, so it provides another specific group context.

Neither supporting study supplies a personal answer for the reader who arrived with an age comparison. Both show how strongly the result depends on who researchers measured.

And if a nerve got touched just now, the help below is real and free, open at any hour.

One last move before the close: press this page into a single sentence of your own — the when and the how, decided now.

And in the spirit of every receipt above: here is how the page itself was built, device by device.

If part of your situation reaches past this page, the guides below cover the next step directly.

What can you conclude from the 2023 age chart?

You can use the chart to locate the broad age pattern, while keeping its limits in view.

The prevalence rate rises from 61.1 per 100,000 at ages 10–14 to 415 per 100,000 at ages 15–19.

It reaches 1,032 per 100,000 at ages 20–24 and continues upward through adulthood.

Rates reach 2,405 per 100,000 at ages 35–39, 2,569 per 100,000 at ages 40–44, and 2,654 per 100,000 at ages 45–49.

The highest recorded rate is 2,694 per 100,000 at ages 55–59.

The nearby ages 50–54 and 60–64 bands remain close, at 2,689 per 100,000 and 2,684 per 100,000.

The burden figures tell a different part of the story.

They rise from about 1,400 DALYs at ages 10–14 to about 64,000 at ages 35–39, then fall to about 50,000 at ages 60–64.

That combination is the answer for the reader comparing age and other mental disorders in this region.

The rate climbs into a high later-adult range, while total DALYs peak earlier in the listed bands.

These facts describe 2023 across Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. They do not identify a cause, predict one person’s future, or replace an assessment of an individual situation.

Read your age band as a place in a population pattern. Keep the age group, measure, region, and year attached to every figure.

This is general information about the mind, not therapy or a diagnosis. If things feel hard, please consult a professional. In a crisis, reach a free, confidential crisis hotline right away; findahelpline.com lists one for your country.