ArticlePloS one2026
Physician estimates of the feasibility of preserving the dying for future revival.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Organ donation and brain preservation after assisted dying: case report and considerations for a potential pathway.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess US physicians' estimates of the feasibility of preservation procedures (cryopreservation, aldehyde-based fixation) for enabling future revival, their views on clinical interventions to improve preservation outcomes, and their positions on ethical and legal frameworks surrounding these end-of-life options.
designCross-sectional survey conducted October 2025.
settingSermo, an online platform for verified US healthcare professionals.
participants334 physicians comprising 150 primary care physicians (general practice, internal medicine, family medicine) and 184 other specialists. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated probability that preservation retains neurally-encoded information sufficient for future revival; support for pre-mortem anticoagulation and pre-cardiac arrest procedure initiation; views on compatibility with patient-centered care.
resultsAmong 334 physicians, the median estimated probability that preservation under ideal conditions could retain sufficient neural information for future revival was 25.5%. Overall, 27.9% found preservation somewhat or very plausible for enabling future revival; 47.0% found it somewhat or very implausible. Most physicians (70.7%) supported prescribing anticoagulants to terminal patients to improve preservation quality; 11.7% opposed. For patients choosing preservation in combination with medical assistance in dying, 44.3% supported initiating preservation prior to cardiac arrest; 28.8% opposed. Most (58.1%) agreed preservation could be consistent with compassionate care (20.1% disagreed), and 49.1% reported comfort with patients choosing preservation (30.0% uncomfortable). Familiarity with preservation correlated with higher probability estimates (ρ = 0.26; p < 10-3), while end-of-life discussion frequency correlated with support for pre-cardiac arrest procedures (ρ = 0.18; p = 0.003).
conclusionsUS physicians assigned a median 25.5% probability to preservation retaining neural information under ideal conditions in a manner potentially compatible with future patient revival. The majority support for pre-mortem anticoagulation and plurality support for pre-cardiac arrest initiation indicate that many physicians would consider accommodating patient requests for preservation-enhancing interventions. These findings may inform development of clinical guidelines, though the speculative nature of the estimates warrants consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.