MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Experimental Evaluation of Personalized Intervention Based on the PLS-SEM Model for Physical

2025· article· W7125912281 on OpenAlexaff
Masahiro Shiraishi, Yuta Masuda, T. Yamamoto, Shoji Hayakawa, Takuya Kamimura, Hiroyuki Iizuka, Keisuke Suzuki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)PersonalityPersonality psychologyPhysical activityContinuationBehavior changePersonalized medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to conduct an experimental evaluation of personalized interventions to promote physical activity. Promoting health behaviors such as physical activity to improve well-being is an important social issue. In recent years, interventions tailored to individual needs (i.e., personalized interventions) have been required. Therefore, we used PLS-SEM to model the relationship between individually different personalities (i.e., personality traits) and the motivational ability of intervention for physical activity, with the goal of enabling personalized interventions. As a result of the experiment, the personalized intervention group based on the model showed a significantly higher implementation rate and continuation rate of physical activity compared to the non-personalized intervention group and the control group. These results suggest that the personalized intervention based on personality traits is effective in promoting physical activity.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→