ArticleBMC medical education2025
Examining the empathy levels of medical students using CHAID analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmpathy is a key factor in the medical field as it strengthens doctor-patient relationships, enhances communication, and leads to improved patient outcomes. This study aims to investigate the empathy levels of medical students, providing insights into the factors that influence these levels and using advanced analytical methods for accurate predictions.
methodsThe study was conducted with 322 medical students from a public university in Turkey. A relational screening model was applied, using a "Personal Information Form" and an "Empathy Scale" to gather data. CHAID analysis was employed to identify the key predictors influencing empathy levels, whereas machine learning algorithms were utilized to classify and predict individuals' empathy levels.
resultsThe analysis revealed that 41.3% of students displayed high empathy, 44.7% moderate empathy, and 14.0% low empathy. Factors such as parental education, maternal occupation, and gender were significant in determining empathy levels, with gender being the most influential. The machine learning models achieved an 80.1% accuracy in predicting empathy levels.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that targeted educational and social interventions, especially those addressing gender differences, could improve empathy in medical students, potentially leading to better patient care.
trial registrationNot applicable, as this study does not report results from a health care intervention involving human participants.
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.