They are comparing with a paper from four years earlier that used that age range.

If your implication of some skulduggery is about guns, the previous paper showed vehicle accidents as the leading cause.

The earlier paper they cite has the same authors.

The point stands, why are they using 20 years old as a cut off for adulthood, when generally it’s 18 and below?

And interesting she published a paper in 2010 that had a cutoff of 18.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20370746/

I can tell you why - the data looks significantly different and tells a different story than the authors want to tell.

If understand you correctly, you are unhappy to see attention drawn to the number of gun related deaths among young people.

Why hint rather than say what you mean?

No, you don't understand correctly.

I'm unhappy with a doctor playing games with statistics by manipulating the data, under the guise of actual science, in order to advance a political agenda.

Everyone should be unhappy with that.

But interesting you didn't comment on the other statements in my reply.

The US has significantly higher rate of car fatalities than peer nations, which you're correct in this case shadows its (far more significantly higher than peer nations) rate of gun deaths.