Background: Empathy, a fundamental aspect of human interaction, is characterized as the ability to experience another being’s emotions within oneself. In health care, empathy is a fundamental for health care professionals and patients’ interaction. It is a unique quality to humans that large language models (LLMs) are believed to lack. Objective: We aimed to review the literature on the capacity of LLMs in demonstrating empathy. Methods: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and arXiv between December 2022 and February 2024. We included English-language full-length publications that evaluated empathy in LLMs’ outputs. We excluded papers evaluating other topics related to emotional intelligence that were not specifically empathy. The included studies’ results, including the LLMs used, performance in empathy tasks, and limitations of the models, along with studies’ metadata were summarized. Results: A total of 12 studies published in 2023 met the inclusion criteria. ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI) was evaluated in all studies, with 6 studies comparing it with other LLMs such GPT-4, LLaMA (Meta), and fine-tuned chatbots. Seven studies focused on empathy within a medical context. The studies reported LLMs to exhibit elements of empathy, including emotions recognition and emotional support in diverse contexts. Evaluation metric included automatic metrics such as Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation and Bilingual Evaluation Understudy, and human subjective evaluation. Some studies compared performance on empathy with humans, while others compared between different models. In some cases, LLMs were observed to outperform humans in empathy-related tasks. For example, ChatGPT-3.5 was evaluated for its responses to patients’ questions from social media, where ChatGPT’s responses were preferred over those of humans in 78.6% of cases. Other studies used subjective readers’ assigned scores. One study reported a mean empathy score of 1.84-1.9 (scale 0-2) for their fine-tuned LLM, while a different study evaluating ChatGPT-based chatbots reported a mean human rating of 3.43 out of 4 for empathetic responses. Other evaluations were based on the level of the emotional awareness scale, which was reported to be higher for ChatGPT-3.5 than for humans. Another study evaluated ChatGPT and GPT-4 on soft-skills questions in the United States Medical Licensing Examination, where GPT-4 answered 90% of questions correctly. Limitations were noted, including repetitive use of empathic phrases, difficulty following initial instructions, overly lengthy responses, sensitivity to prompts, and overall subjective evaluation metrics influenced by the evaluator’s background. Conclusions: LLMs exhibit elements of cognitive empathy, recognizing emotions and providing emotionally supportive responses in various contexts. Since social skills are an integral part of intelligence, these advancements bring LLMs closer to human-like interactions and expand their potential use in applications requiring emotional intelligence. However, there remains room for improvement in both the performance of these models and the evaluation strategies used for assessing soft skills.

Background Large language models (LLMs) show promise in clinical contexts but can generate false facts (often referred to as “hallucinations”). One subset of these errors arises from adversarial attacks, in which fabricated details embedded in prompts lead the model to produce or elaborate on the false information. We embedded fabricated content in clinical prompts to elicit adversarial hallucination attacks in multiple large language models. We quantified how often they elaborated on false details and tested whether a specialized mitigation prompt or altered temperature settings reduced errors. Methods We created 300 physician-validated simulated vignettes, each containing one fabricated detail (a laboratory test, a physical or radiological sign, or a medical condition). Each vignette was presented in short and long versions—differing only in word count but identical in medical content. We tested six LLMs under three conditions: default (standard settings), mitigating prompt (designed to reduce hallucinations), and temperature 0 (deterministic output with maximum response certainty), generating 5,400 outputs. If a model elaborated on the fabricated detail, the case was classified as a “hallucination”. Results Hallucination rates range from 50 % to 82 % across models and prompting methods. Prompt-based mitigation lowers the overall hallucination rate (mean across all models) from 66 % to 44 % (p < 0.001). For the best-performing model, GPT-4o, rates decline from 53 % to 23 % (p < 0.001). Temperature adjustments offer no significant improvement. Short vignettes show slightly higher odds of hallucination. Conclusions LLMs are highly susceptible to adversarial hallucination attacks, frequently generating false clinical details that pose risks when used without safeguards. While prompt engineering reduces errors, it does not eliminate them.

Background: Machine learning models require large datasets that may be siloed across different health care institutions. Machine learning studies that focus on COVID-19 have been limited to single-hospital data, which limits model generalizability. Objective: We aimed to use federated learning, a machine learning technique that avoids locally aggregating raw clinical data across multiple institutions, to predict mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 within 7 days. Methods: Patient data were collected from the electronic health records of 5 hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System. Logistic regression with L1 regularization/least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) models were trained by using local data at each site. We developed a pooled model with combined data from all 5 sites, and a federated model that only shared parameters with a central aggregator. Results: The LASSOfederated model outperformed the LASSOlocal model at 3 hospitals, and the MLPfederated model performed better than the MLPlocal model at all 5 hospitals, as determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The LASSOpooled model outperformed the LASSOfederated model at all hospitals, and the MLPfederated model outperformed the MLPpooled model at 2 hospitals. Conclusions: The federated learning of COVID-19 electronic health record data shows promise in developing robust predictive models without compromising patient privacy.