Article info
Extended essay
Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence
- Correspondence to Dr Nathaniel Paul Sharadin, Department of Philosophy, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ 08628, USA; natesharadin{at}gmail.com
Citation
Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence
Publication history
- Received August 2, 2017
- Revised April 20, 2018
- Accepted May 9, 2018
- First published June 12, 2018.
Online issue publication
November 22, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (22 November 2018).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Other content recommended for you
- Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor
- Trial by Triad: substituted judgment, mental illness and the right to die
- Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients
- Ethics of the algorithmic prediction of goal of care preferences: from theory to practice
- Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making
- Adherence to advance directives in critical care decision making: vignette study
- Sovereignty, authenticity and the patient preference predictor
- A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor?
- Meta-surrogate decision making and artificial intelligence
- Determinants of completion of advance directives: a cross-sectional comparison of 649 outpatients from private practices versus 2158 outpatients from a university clinic