Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40360251›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025

Respecting formerly autonomous persons: clarifying the role of the Personalised Patient Preference Predictor (P4) in substituted judgement.

Brian D Earp, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Tessa van Veenendaal, Jemima Winifred Allen, Sabine Salloch, Karin Rolanda Jongsma, Matthias Braun, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Julian Savulescu, Annette Rid and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Brian D EarpCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore bdearp@nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-2888
Sebastian Porsdam MannCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1867-2097
Tessa van VeenendaalUehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2386-3763
Jemima Winifred AllenUehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Sabine SallochInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2987-2684
Karin Rolanda JongsmaJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8135-6786
Matthias BraunChair of Social Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6687-6027
Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongDepartment of Philosophy and Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Julian SavulescuCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Annette RidClinical Center Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
David WendlerClinical Center Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Autonomy

Identifiers

PMID40360251
PMCPMC12322471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.