Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41890310›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026

From inferring preferences to enabling choice: potentials of digital tools to improve substitute decision-making.

Florian Funer, Christin Hempeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Florian FunerInstitute for Ethics and History of Medicine, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Christin HempelerInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respect for patient autonomy is a foundational principle in healthcare ethics, which holds that patients can make their own treatment decisions. However, sometimes patients lack the capacity to do so and surrogates must decide on their behalf in the sense of substitute decision-making. This is challenging, as guidance for these decisions is often lacking due to limited engagement in advance care planning (ACP) and the low prevalence of advance directives (ADs), which allow patients to pre-determine their treatment preferences. In response to these challenges, digital technologies employing artificial intelligence-particularly so-called (Personalized) Patient Preference Predictors (PPP or P4)-have recently received comprehensive scholarly attention, with initial studies exploring their technical feasibility. These tools aim to leverage AI's capacity to process large datasets to infer individual patients' likely treatment preferences, thereby hoping to alleviate surrogates' burden and to promote patient autonomy by facilitating treatment decisions more in line with patients' preferences. In this article, we emphasize that autonomy is more robustly respected when substitute decisions rely on deliberate expressions of will formulated through ACP or documented in ADs rather than on even highly accurate predictions of treatment preferences. While we acknowledge the potential of PPPs/P4s to improve substitute decision-making when no explicit guidance exists, we caution against allowing current enthusiasm for AI-driven preference prediction to overlook the considerable potential that digital tools and AI offer for strengthening ACP and increasing completion of ADs. We therefore call for greater investment in using digital technologies to enhance ACP processes.

Indexed as

advance care planning (ACP)advance directives (AD)artificial intelligence (AI)decision-making capacity(Personalized) patient preference predictor (PPP/P4)substituted judgmentsurrogate decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41890310
PMCPMC13013408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.