Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711721›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Algorithms for Empathy: Using Machine Learning to Categorize Common Empathetic Traits Across Professional and Peer-Based Conversations.

Scott Provence, Alyssa A Forcehimes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.

Scott ProvenceFounder, Versant Metrics, Duvall, USA.
Alyssa A ForcehimesBoard Member, Versant Metrics, Paradise Valley, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction In this article, we describe our creation of a machine-learning model that uses a combination of rule-based and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms. We show how this "Empathy Algorithm" was developed and how its results compare to three datasets of professional counseling and peer-led conversations.  Methods These conversation datasets were rated by people with varying degrees of empathetic expertise (from counselors to student volunteers) and labeled as either low- or high-quality empathy. Our methodology involved running both these "low-empathy" and "high-empathy" conversations through our algorithm and then looking for a correlation between conversations labeled "high empathy" and an increased presence of six empathy skills flagged by our algorithm.  Results We found positive correlations between four of the six skills that our algorithm measures (i.e., four empathizing skills showed up the same or more in each of the "high-empathy" conversations within the three datasets). This suggests that certain empathizing skills are not only consistently present in effective conversations but also quantifiable enough to be measured by today's machine-learning models. Conclusion While limitations of language, binary classifications, and non-verbal cues remain as opportunities for further development, using algorithms to objectively assess empathic skills represents an important step to improve client outcomes and refine communication practices for today's healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

ai-based educationartificial intelligenceeducationempathylanguage and communicationmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38711721
PMCPMC11070898

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.