To do the study the subjects must be alive.
Dead people can’t be interviewed.
There is no percentage or chance, they are alive and can be interviewed or they died.
I am addressing the study. Only people who it turned out weren’t dead can be interviewed.
You seem to have the mistaken impression the subjects are interviewed during their near death experience.
Obviously, the people are alive when they are interviewed. What you miss (or resist) is that they were dead when they had the experiences they later describe. So far as I understand the article, there was no evidence of life apparent to the observer for an extended period, no brain activity, no heartbeat, nothing. That’s what we would agree to as being “dead”. You want to argue that the state of being dead depends on unknowable future events, whether or not the subject is later revived, and not the state of the subject at the time of the observation.