ArticleScientific reports2025
Developing a standardized framework for evaluating health apps using natural language processing.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile App Rating Scale for Health Care Professionals to Assess the Quality of mHealth Apps: Questionnaire Development and Psychometric Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Mindbench.ai: an actionable platform to evaluate the profile and performance of large language models in a mental healthcare context.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.