Correlation between Stress and Empathy in Medical Students As Compared To General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical students are exposed to numerous internal and external pressures exerted by the environment which may affect their empathy towards patients. This study was conducted to find association between perceived stress and empathy.
 Methodology: The study was conducted in Surat, Gujarat, India from August 15 2021 to September 15 2021 among 225 participants using perceived stress score and using the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire. Two groups -Undergraduate medical students and general population were compared.
 Results: Out of 160 medical undergraduates and 65 people from general population below average empathy was noted in total 51.1%. High empathic attitude was noted in general population in comparison to other medical undergraduates. 24.4% reported low stress, 64% moderate stress and 11.6% high stress and we can appreciate that low stress scores were calculated in general population in comparison to medical undergraduate students. A weak negative correlation between empathy and perceived stress was calculated in medical students whereas strong positive correlation between empathy and perceived stress was calculated in general population.
 Conclusion: A significant proportion of medical students had a comparatively higher stress scores and decreased empathy hence their stress is considered distress whereas general population’s high stress scores were corelating to high empathic attitude, therefore their stress can be considered eustress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".