Evaluating the Energy Efficiency of Popular US Smartphone Health Care Apps: Comparative Analysis Study Toward Sustainable Health and Nutrition Apps Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence of smartphones has sparked a transformation across multiple fields, with health care being one of the most notable due to the advent of mobile health (mHealth) apps. As mHealth apps have gained popularity, there is a need to understand their energy consumption patterns as an integral part of the evolving landscape of health care technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the key contributors to elevated energy consumption in mHealth apps and suggest methods for their optimization, addressing a significant void in our comprehension of the energy dynamics at play within mHealth apps. METHODS: Through quantitative comparative analysis of 10 prominent mHealth apps available on Android platforms within the United States, this study examined factors contributing to high energy consumption. The analysis included descriptive statistics, comparative analysis using ANOVA, and regression analysis to examine how certain factors impact energy use and consumption. RESULTS: Observed energy use variances in mHealth apps stemmed from user interactions, features, and underlying technology. Descriptive analysis revealed variability in app energy consumption (150-310 milliwatt-hours), highlighting the influence of user interaction and app complexity. ANOVA verified these findings, indicating the critical role of engagement and functionality. Regression modeling (energy consumption = β₀ + β₁ × notification frequency + β₂ × GPS use + β₃ × app complexity + ε), with statistically significant P values (notification frequency with a P value of .01, GPS use with a P value of .05, and app complexity with a P value of .03), further quantified these bases' effects on energy use. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in the energy consumption of dietary apps reaffirm the need for a multidisciplinary approach to bring together app developers, end users, and health care experts to foster improved energy conservation practice while achieving a balance between sustainable practice and user experience. More research is needed to better understand how to scale-up consumer engagement to achieve sustainable development goal 12 on responsible consumption and production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".