ReviewJMIR AI2026
Large Language Model-Based Agents for Physical Activity and Cognitive Training: Scoping Review.
Review in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Model-Based Agents for Physical Activity and Cognitive Training: Scoping Review.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Large language models for promoting physical activity: a review of experiential and behavioral outcomes, social roles, and human-likeness in persuasive LLMs.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents have been increasingly used in digital health interventions. However, their specific application to physical activity (PA) and cognitive training-two critical well-being domains-has not been systematically mapped. In fact, these domains share an important need for personalized, adaptive support and conversational engagement, making them relevant targets for examining how LLM-based agents are currently conceptualized and deployed. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the extent, characteristics, and design practices of LLM-based conversational agents supporting PA or cognitive training, specifically analyzing their application contexts, social roles, and technological features. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we searched Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore for studies published between January 2018 and December 2024. We included eligible studies that described LLM-based conversational agents designed for PA or cognitive training. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data. Descriptive synthesis and framework analysis were used to characterize intervention domains, agent roles, prompting strategies, model types, and reported outcomes. Results: Of 357 records screened, 10 studies met eligibility criteria (7 on PA and 3 on cognitive training). Applications predominantly involved coaching roles for PA and companion or scaffolding roles in cognitive domains. The agent landscape was dominated by proprietary LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard), with limited use of open-weight models. Prompt engineering emerged as a central yet inconsistently documented design mechanism. Reported outcomes mainly focused on perceived usefulness, engagement, or content quality, with few quantitative behavioral outcomes. Conclusions: LLM-based conversational agents have demonstrated early promise for supporting PA and emerging approaches to cognitive training, yet the current evidence remains exploratory and methodologically limited. Key challenges persist, including inconsistent reporting of prompts, reliance on proprietary models with limited reproducibility, and a lack of standardized outcome measures. More rigorous and transparently documented evaluations of these tools are required to strengthen the evidence base and guide future development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.