Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40189623›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Developing a standardized framework for evaluating health apps using natural language processing.

Julian Herpertz, Bridget Dwyer, Jacob Taylor, Nils Opel, John Torous

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Julian HerpertzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Bridget DwyerDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jacob TaylorDavid A. Dunlap Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nils OpelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
John TorousDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. jtorous@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite regulatory efforts, many smartphone health applications remain unregulated, raising concerns about privacy, security, and evidence-based effectiveness. The lack of standardized regulation has led to the proliferation of over 130 frameworks, introducing new criteria and methodologies for app evaluation. The sheer number of frameworks, coupled with their varying approaches to app evaluation, create challenges for comparison. Our study aims to synthesize existing knowledge and propose a standardized app evaluation framework. We conducted a synthesis of reviews on health app evaluation frameworks. Using natural language processing (NLP), we analyzed evaluation domains and grouped them into clusters based on semantic similarities. Standardized definitions for these clusters were developed. We identified eight review articles that met the inclusion criteria, each proposing between six and 17 app evaluation domains. Using NLP, we identified five clusters of app evaluation: Effectiveness & Development, Technology & Functionality, Validity & Legal, Safety & Privacy, and Implementation & Ethics, each of which was assigned a standardized definition. The clusters align with but expand on the American Psychiatric Association's evaluation domains, incorporating critical aspects such as inclusivity, safety, engagement, and ethical principles. Temporal analysis revealed an increasing focus on Effectiveness & Development, while Safety & Privacy showed a stagnation in attention over time.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsNatural Language ProcessingHumansSmartphoneTelemedicineApp evaluation frameworkInformation managementMobile health appsNatural Language processingTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40189623
PMCPMC11973176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.