MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410340931 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01671-6

Patient perceptions of empathy in physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions about cancer

2025· article· en· W4410340931 on OpenAlexaff
David Chen, Kabir Chauhan, Rod Parsa, Zhihui Amy Liu, Fei‐Fei Liu, Ernie Mak, Lawson Eng, Breffni Hannon, Jennifer Croke, Andrew Hope, Nazanin Fallah‐Rad, Phillip Wong, Srinivas Raman

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentrePublic Health OntarioMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotEmpathyPerceptionPsychologyCancerMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence chatbots can draft empathetic responses to cancer questions, but how patients perceive chatbot empathy remains unclear. Here, we found that people with cancer rated chatbot responses as more empathetic than physician responses. However, differences between patient and physician perceptions of empathy highlight the need for further research to tailor clinical messaging to better meet patient needs. Chatbots may be effective in generating empathetic template responses to patient questions under clinician oversight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207