MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412867584 · doi:10.2196/70987

Cluster-Based Predictive Modeling of User Ratings for Physical Activity Apps Using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) Dimensions: Model Development and Validation

2025· article· en· W4412867584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayush Bhattacharya, José F. Flórez-Arango

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMobile appsScale (ratio)Rating scaleCluster (spacecraft)Computer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→