Cluster-Based Predictive Modeling of User Ratings for Physical Activity Apps Using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) Dimensions: Model Development and Validation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The expansion of mobile health app or apps has created a growing need for structured and predictive tools to evaluate app quality before deployment. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) offers a standardized, expert-driven assessment across 4 key dimensions-engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information-but its use in forecasting user satisfaction through predictive modeling remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to investigate how k-means clustering, combined with machine learning models, can predict user ratings for physical activity apps based on MARS dimensions, with the goal of forecasting ratings before production and uncovering insights into user satisfaction drivers. Methods: We analyzed a dataset of 155 MARS-rated physical activity apps with user ratings. The dataset was split into training (n=111) and testing (n=44) subsets. K means clustering was applied to the training data, identifying 2 clusters. Exploratory data analysis included box plots, summary statistics, and component+residual plots to visualize linearity and distribution patterns across MARS dimensions. Correlation analysis was performed to quantify relationships between each MARS dimension and user ratings. In total, 5 machine learning models-generalized additive models, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and support vector regression-were trained with and without clustering. Models were hypertuned and trained separately on each cluster, and the best-performing model for each cluster was selected. These predictions were combined to compute final performance metrics for the test set. Performance was evaluated using correct prediction percentage (0.5 range), mean absolute error, and R². Validation was performed on 2 additional datasets: mindfulness (n=85) and older adults (n=55) apps. Results: Exploratory data analysis revealed that apps in cluster 1 were feature-rich and scored higher across all MARS dimensions, reflecting comprehensive and engagement-oriented designs. In contrast, cluster 2 comprised simpler, utilitarian apps focused on basic functionality. Component+residual plots showed nonlinear relationships, which became more interpretable within clusters. Correlation analysis indicated stronger associations between user ratings and engagement and functionality, but weaker or negative correlations with aesthetics and information, particularly in cluster 2. In the unclustered dataset, k nearest neighbors achieved 79.55% accuracy, mean absolute error=0.26, and R²=0.06. The combined support vector regression (cluster 1)+k-nearest neighbors (cluster 2) model achieved the highest performance: 88.64% accuracy, mean absolute error=0.27, and R²=0.04. Clustering improved prediction accuracy and enhanced alignment between predicted and actual user ratings. Models also generalized well to the external datasets. Conclusions: The combined clustering and modeling approach enhances prediction accuracy and reveals how user satisfaction drivers vary across app types. By transforming MARS from a descriptive tool into a predictive framework, this study offers a scalable, transparent method for forecasting user ratings during app development-particularly useful in early-stage or low-data settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».