AI HeartBot to Increase Women’s Awareness and Knowledge of Heart Attacks: Nonrandomized, Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heart disease remains a leading cause of death for women in the United States, but awareness and knowledge about it are declining. Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have great potential to educate women. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the potential efficacy of HeartBot to increase women's awareness and knowledge of heart attack symptoms and care-seeking behavior. Methods: In this nonrandomized pilot, quasi-experimental study, 92 women aged ≥25 years without a history of heart disease completed the HeartBot interaction via SMS text messaging. The study was remotely conducted from October 2023 to January 2024. HeartBot, a fully automated AI chatbot, covered 15 topics of heart attack awareness, knowledge, symptoms, and care seeking in a single session. The mean length of the HeartBot interaction was 13.0 (SD 7.80) minutes. The primary outcomes consist of four questions: (1) recognizing signs and symptoms of a heart attack, (2) telling the difference between the signs and symptoms of a heart attack, (3) calling an ambulance or dialing 911 when experiencing heart attack symptoms, and (4) getting to an emergency room within 60 minutes after the onset of symptoms of a heart attack. Women were asked to answer the 4 questions before and after the HeartBot interaction on a scale of 1 to 4, with a higher score indicating higher levels of awareness and knowledge of heart attack risks and symptoms. Results: The mean age of the sample was 45.9 (SD 11.9) years. In total, 59.8% (55/92) of the sample identified as belonging to racial or ethnic minority groups. The mean length of the HeartBot interaction was 13.0 (SD 7.80) minutes. In ordinal logistic regression models, women showed significant improvements across the 4 self-reported outcomes (ie, heart attack symptoms and calling 911) even after controlling for potential confounding factors (outcome 1: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.10, 95% CI 3.52-13.16; outcome 2: aOR 5.47, 95% CI 2.77-10.78; outcome 3: aOR 5.75, 95% CI 2.86-11.59; and outcome 4: aOR 2.85, 95% CI 1.54-5.25; P<.001 for all 4 outcomes). Conclusions: HeartBot led to a substantial increase in awareness and knowledge of heart attack risks and symptoms in women. These findings suggest that HeartBot is a promising approach to improving heart health education. A randomized controlled trial of HeartBot is warranted to establish its efficacy and safety for the clinical setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".