Conversational Agents and Avatars for Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and Lifestyle-Related Behaviors: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of conversational agents for lifestyle medicine, in particular for weight-related behaviors and cardiometabolic risk factors. Little is known about the effectiveness and acceptability of and engagement with conversational and virtual agents as well as the applicability of these agents for metabolic syndrome risk factors such as an unhealthy dietary intake, physical inactivity, diabetes, and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to get a greater understanding of the virtual agents that have been developed for cardiometabolic risk factors and to review their effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted to review conversational agents for cardiometabolic risk factors, including chatbots and embodied avatars. RESULTS: A total of 50 studies were identified. Overall, chatbots and avatars appear to have the potential to improve weight-related behaviors such as dietary intake and physical activity. There were limited studies on hypertension and diabetes. Patients seemed interested in using chatbots and avatars for modifying cardiometabolic risk factors, and adherence was acceptable across the studies, except for studies of virtual agents for diabetes. However, there is a need for randomized controlled trials to confirm this finding. As there were only a few clinical trials, more research is needed to confirm whether conversational coaches may assist with cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Conversational coaches may regulate cardiometabolic risk factors; however, quality trials are needed to expand the evidence base. A future chatbot could be tailored to metabolic syndrome specifically, targeting all the areas covered in the literature, which would be novel.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".