ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Empathy AI in healthcare.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital compassion fatigue and digital empathy in healthcare: mapping the evidence and informing a human-centered clinical framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- AI and Its Shifting Roles in the Therapeutic Relationship: Implications for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- The relationship between trait mindfulness and psychotic-like experiences in a brief AI-generated music listening context: the roles of presence, perceived interactivity, and emotional arousal.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
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
Introduction: AI is changing healthcare and potentially even how humans interpret and express empathy. Patients and healthcare professionals are consulting AI for medical concerns, so it is critical to identify when AI expressions of empathy are helpful versus harmful. Whether or not AI is considered genuinely empathetic, the common goal is to improve AI outputs as well as healthcare outcomes. The paper explores how generative AI can impact care in a digital future. Methods: We develop a tool for evaluating empathy called the Chatbot Compassion Quotient, or CCQ. We created a set of nine prompts, assessing compassion in various capacities, including delivering difficult news and alleviating frustration, based on the psychology literature. We compare ChatGPT and Claude-generated responses with responses from healthcare professionals. Participants also guessed which of the responses was AI-generated versus human-generated. In this corollary to the Turing test, the central question "can machines think?" became "can machines demonstrate compassion?" Thirty participants rated 3 responses to 9 scenarios on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (not at all compassionate) to 5 (very compassionate). Responses corresponded to either ChatGPT, human, or Claude-generated results and were labeled A, B, and C in random order. After rating on the compassion scale, participants were asked to identify which, between two options, was AI-generated. Results: Results indicated that participants considered responses from ChatGPT (aggregate score: 4.1 out of 5) and Claude (aggregate score: 4.1 out of 5) more empathetic than human (aggregate score: 2.6 out of 5) responses, with length being a potential factor impacting evaluations. Longer responses were typically rated as more compassionate. The scores for ChatGPT and Claude were comparable. Responses that appeared most obviously AI-generated performed well compared to human responses. High-scoring responses were action-oriented with multiple forms of social support. Conclusion: The study highlights the promise of human-machine synergy in healthcare. AI may alleviate fatigue and burnout in the medical field, contributing thorough responses that offer insight into patient-centered care. Further research can build on these preliminary findings to evaluate and improve expressions of empathy in AI.
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.