Cluster-Based Predictive Modeling of User Ratings for Physical Activity Apps Using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) Dimensions: Model Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".