Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41818489›Full record

ReviewJMIR AI2026

Large Language Model-Based Agents for Physical Activity and Cognitive Training: Scoping Review.

Alessandro Silacci, Benedetta Giachetti, Leonardo Angelini, Nicola Francesco Lopomo, Giuseppe Andreoni, Elena Mugellini, Mauro Cherubini, Maurizio Caon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alessandro SilacciDepartment of Information Systems, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Quartier Centre, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland, 41 21 692 11 11.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8121-3013
Benedetta GiachettiHumanTech Institute, School of Engineering and Architecture Fribourg, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8204-6017
Leonardo AngeliniDigital Business Center, School of Management Fribourg, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8802-5282
Nicola Francesco LopomoDesign Department, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5795-2606
Giuseppe AndreoniDesign Department, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5537-4128
Elena MugelliniHumanTech Institute, School of Engineering and Architecture Fribourg, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0775-0862
Mauro CherubiniDepartment of Information Systems, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Quartier Centre, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland, 41 21 692 11 11.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1860-6110
Maurizio CaonDigital Business Center, School of Management Fribourg, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4050-4214

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cognitive trainingconversational agentslarge language modelsphysical activityprompt engineeringreproducibilityscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41818489
PMCPMC12981376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.