ArticleCureus2024
Algorithms for Empathy: Using Machine Learning to Categorize Common Empathetic Traits Across Professional and Peer-Based Conversations.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.