Does medical school affect students' empathy? A cross-sectional study measuring empathy levels among Saudi medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This research aimed to measure empathy levels among medical students of all academic years and assess whether empathy levels decrease, increase, or remain the same throughout medical school. Also, to measure the mean empathy score and correlated empathy scores to different socio-demographic, personal, and familial variables. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 400 medical students. The study was carried out from October 2020 to May 2021 using online-based surveys, which consisted of questions to collect socio-demographic data and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire to measure empathy levels. Results: There was no significant change in empathy levels among medical students as they progressed through medical school. However, below-average empathy levels were reported among medical students. There was no significant association between gender or age and empathy levels. Nevertheless, students with a disabled family member had significantly higher empathy levels than others. Conclusion: Effective interventions and measures to enhance empathy and students' psychosocial development are needed to achieve better future clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".