MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414410969 · doi:10.1038/s44325-025-00083-5

Fine-tuning LLMs in behavioral psychology for scalable health coaching

2025· article· en· W4414410969 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sriya Mantena, Anders Johnson, Marily Oppezzo, Narayan Schütz, Alexander Tolas, Ritu Doijad, Allan Lawrie, Mariana Ramírez‐Posada, Paul Schmiedmayer, Eleni Linos, ­Abby C. King, Fátima Rodríguez, Daniel Seung Kim, Euan A. Ashley

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Cardiovascular Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on AgingImperial College LondonAmerican Heart AssociationAmerican Diabetes AssociationUniversity of WashingtonNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaStanford Bio-X
KeywordsTranstheoretical modelOperationalizationCoachingeHealthHealth psychologyHealth coachingPsychological interventionBehavior changePhysical activityBehavioural sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized, smartphone-based coaching improves physical activity but relies on static, human-crafted messages. We introduce My Heart Counts (MHC)-Coach, a large language model fine-tuned on the Transtheoretical Model of Change. MHC-Coach generates messages tailored to an individual’s psychology (their “stage of change”), providing personalized support to foster long-term physical activity behavior change. To evaluate MHC-Coach’s efficacy, 632 participants compared human-expert and MHC-Coach interventions encouraging physical activity. Among messages matched to an individual’s stage of change, 68.0% ( N = 430) preferred MHC-Coach-generated messages ( P < 0.001). Blinded behavioral science experts ( N = 2) rated MHC-Coach messages higher than human-expert messages for perceived effectiveness (4.4 vs. 2.8) and Transtheoretical Model alignment (4.1 vs. 3.5) on a 5-point Likert scale. This work demonstrates how language models can operationalize behavioral science frameworks for personalized health coaching, showing the potential for promoting long-term physical activity and reducing cardiovascular disease risk at scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Cardiovascular HealthSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207