I have big problems with this data although thank you for posting it.
First, it makes suicide, homicide and accidental death look like bigger problems than they really are in the young and smaller problems than they really are in the old. As age related diseases begin taking their toll later in life, they are going to crowd out suicide as a percentage. For example, if you take the rate of heart disease and cancer in the 45-64 group , about 50%, and put that into the 10-24 group, it would squish the suicide down to much closer to the same rate as older people. This artificial emphasis on suicide in the young underplays the problem of suicide in older people.
Second, I hate when they leave chunks as large as 20-27% "other". That's a huge unexplained portion, a fifth to a quarter of all deaths! Are those all miscellaneous diseases or are things like "terrorist attack" thrown in there? What about drug overdose? I don't see that anywhere, could that not be significant enough to get its own slice? Is it lumped in with "accidental" injury?
And then there are all the ways deaths are misattributed. My dad's ca10-24use of death was listed as "pneumonia". But the pneumonia was brought on by an accidental aspiration of blood when his surgeon did a post op followup of an wound from resection of a tiny oral cancer. Technically the aspiration was iatrogenic. I don't see "doctor screw up" as a slice in there, but wait, the oral cancer was caused by dad smoking. Tobacco was the ultimate distal cause of his death.
But I get that this data is looking at proximal cause. Alright then, in the 85 and over category, you have a high heart disease cause but how often do they do autopsy on the elderly? A 95 year old visiting his family one day, tells them, "I'm tired of you guys, I'm going home to die in my own bed tonight," got in his car, drove home, got into bed and died in his sleep that night (true story of an acquaintance). Cause of death? Heart failure, because his heart stopped. Duh. It usually does stop when you die.
I could go on and on but you get the idea. The data is helpful but you have to understand the limitations.