Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 75 references

The Impact of Foundational Models on Patient-Centric e-Health Systems

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This study finds that over 86% of 116 patient-centric e-Health apps on Google Play are at the early stages of AI maturity, with only 13.79% reaching advanced integration and none achieving Transformational status.

desk verdict A defensible first pass at measuring AI maturity in patient-facing health apps, but the headline 86.21% rests on a manual, undocumented classification step that no reliability evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21882 v1 pith:54MYOP7V submitted 2025-07-29 cs.AI cs.SE

Elmira Onagh , Alireza Davoodi , Maleknaz Nayebi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.SE
keywords e-HealthsystemshealthfoundationalmodelsAImaturitymodelGartnerAIMMLLMfeatureextractionappstoreminingpatient-centrichealthcareGooglePlay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Patient-facing health apps often advertise AI, but this paper asks how much AI they actually have inside. It mines Google Play for 116 patient-centric applications, extracts their functional features with a fine-tuned large language model, and classifies each app into the five levels of the Gartner AI maturity model. The result is a lopsided distribution: 86.21% of apps sit in the two lowest stages (Awareness and Active), only 13.79% reach Operational or Systematic integration, and none achieve Transformational status. A weak positive correlation (0.30) between AI maturity and popularity hints that users reward more capable AI, though the paper does not claim causation. The study's value, if its measurements hold, is a baseline for tracking whether foundational-model AI actually reaches patients in real products.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Gartner AI maturity model, a five-level scale—Awareness, Active, Operational, Systematic, Transformational—used to score how deeply AI is embedded in each app. Feeding that scale is a feature-extraction pipeline: a fine-tuned large language model extracts named features from app-store descriptions; the features are lemmatized, embedded with a sentence-transformer model, and merged by cosine similarity at a threshold of 0.9; a human review and a crowdsourcing step validate the results. The resulting maturity labels are then compared against app store ratings and install counts to assess whether AI maturity tracks popularity.

What would settle it

Install and exercise a random sample of the 116 apps, inspect their code or network traffic for inference endpoints and embedded models, and compare what is actually running against the LLM-extracted feature lists; if many apps classified as Awareness or Active run undocumented AI, or if many AI-labeled features prove static, the 86.21% maturity distribution would have to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that patient-centric e-Health apps on the Google Play Store are overwhelmingly immature in their AI integration. Of 116 apps, 70 are classified at Awareness, 30 at Active, 11 at Operational, and only 5 at Systematic, with zero at Transformational. Because the first two levels amount to superficial or pilot-stage AI, the headline result is that 86.21% of apps occupy the early AI maturity stages, while 13.79% show advanced integration. The paper interprets this as evidence that health foundational models have not yet diffused into patient-facing products, and it reports a weak positive correlation (0.30) between AI maturity and popularity metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The 86.21% figure assumes that the AI features an app's store description mentions—extracted by the fine-tuned LLM and reviewed by humans—faithfully reflect the AI capabilities actually built into the app, including any undisclosed backend functionality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 86.21% early-stage share is accurate, most patient-centric e-Health apps are not yet delivering foundation-model-level capabilities such as predictive analytics or personalized treatment recommendations, no matter how AI-forward their store listings sound.
  • The absence of any Transformational app implies that the full vision of health foundational models—autonomous decision support and deeply personalized care—has not yet materialized in the consumer marketplace.
  • The weak positive correlation between maturity and popularity suggests that apps with more integrated AI tend to earn modestly better ratings and installs, but the paper explicitly stops short of claiming that AI maturity causes popularity.
  • The feature-inventory method provides a reproducible way to track the e-Health AI landscape over time, so the same measurement could be repeated to see whether foundational-model adoption grows.
  • The 942 unique extracted features and the top features like health-data provision and symptom tracking indicate that today's app value lies mostly in usability and data capture, not advanced intelligence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the classification is built from store descriptions, the 86.21% figure is best read as the share of apps that disclose little AI, not necessarily the share that contain no AI; apps with privacy-sensitive or backend-only AI could be undercounted.
  • Beyond the paper: the same extraction-and-maturity pipeline could be run on iOS App Store listings or on non-health consumer categories to test whether low AI maturity is specific to patient-centric e-Health or common across mobile software.
  • Beyond the paper: a longitudinal study that tracks the same 116 apps over time could turn the weak popularity correlation into a stronger test—if apps that upgrade from Active to Operational later gain installs and ratings, the market-preference signal would be more credible.
  • Beyond the paper: the manual maturity classification from descriptions could be cross-checked against dynamic app testing, which would reveal whether 'Systematic' apps truly embed AI across workflows or merely describe it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 116 patient-centric e-Health applications from the Google Play Store. The authors use llama3.1-8b with fine-tuning to extract functional features from app descriptions, consolidate them via cosine similarity, and then manually classify each app into one of five levels of the Gartner AI maturity model (Awareness, Active, Operational, Systematic, Transformational). The headline result is that 70 apps are Awareness, 30 are Active, 11 are Operational, 5 are Systematic, and 0 are Transformational, yielding the abstract's claim that 86.21% of applications remain at early AI integration stages while 13.79% demonstrate advanced integration. The paper also reports a weak positive correlation (0.30) between AI maturity and app popularity metrics (ratings and installs).

Significance. If the central measurements were validated, this study would provide a useful market-level baseline for AI and foundational-model integration in patient-facing e-Health apps, an area that is underexplored relative to provider-side AI research. The study is also commendably candid about its limitations in Section VI, and the descriptive statistics on features, ratings, and installs are clearly presented. However, the headline 86.21% figure rests on a manual, unvalidated mapping from LLM-extracted feature lists to an organizational maturity framework, and the paper itself acknowledges that app descriptions may omit backend AI functionality. The precise percentage should therefore be treated as provisional until the classification step is backed by reliability and validity evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III and Section IV-B] The central 86.21% versus 13.79% split is produced by a manual classification step with no codebook, no explicit decision rules, and no inter-rater reliability. The manuscript states, 'Using these extracted features and discussions with experts... we manually classified each application,' but it does not define how a feature list maps to Awareness versus Active versus Operational. Since the Operational boundary is exactly the cut point between the two headline categories, a small number of boundary misclassifications would materially change the result. A reproducible coding scheme, independent coders, and agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) are needed, or the headline should be reported as an unvalidated descriptive estimate rather than a precise percentage.
  2. [Section III-A and Section IV-B] The Gartner AI maturity model is defined in terms of organizational adoption (e.g., 'AI-related discussions occur informally,' 'AI initiative is in production'), but Section IV-B silently reinterprets these levels as observable properties of a mobile app, such as 'minimal or superficial use of AI, such as basic rule-based systems.' This construct-validity issue is load-bearing because the maturity labels are the paper's main output. The authors should justify the reinterpretation, ideally by providing a mapping from concrete app features to each maturity level, or by adopting a maturity model designed for consumer-facing software products.
  3. [Section III and Section VI] The feature extraction accuracy is only reported for a manual review of 146 raw features (6.16% inaccuracy), and no held-out evaluation of the fine-tuned llama3.1-8b model is reported. Given that Section VI explicitly acknowledges the risk of LLM hallucination, and given that the extracted feature list is the input to the manual maturity classification, the authors should provide precision, recall, or a similar metric on a held-out set of app descriptions, or otherwise demonstrate that extraction errors do not systematically affect the maturity labels.
  4. [Section IV-B and Figure 3-2] The reported correlation of 0.30 between AI maturity and popularity metrics is presented without a significance test, confidence interval, or effect size. The correlation matrix in Figure 3-2 shows values (0.26, 0.28, 0.30) but no p-values, and with n=116 and ordinal maturity levels, the appropriate test (e.g., Spearman's rank correlation with a confidence interval) should be reported before claiming that 'applications may experience positive gains in user engagement and perceived value as AI maturity increases.'
  5. [Section VI] The internal validity threat is acknowledged in the manuscript: 'some applications may include undocumented backend AI functionalities' and the classification 'inevitably involves subjective judgment.' These are not peripheral caveats; they directly affect every maturity label. A sensitivity analysis would be a concrete way to address this, for example by reclassifying a random sample of apps under optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of ambiguous descriptions and showing how the 86.21% figure changes, or by validating a subset of apps against their actual runtime behavior or developer documentation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Author affiliations] There are typos in the author affiliations: 'York Univeristy' should be 'York University'.
  2. [Figure 4] The x-axis label in Figure 4 reads 'Systemic' but the text and the maturity model use 'Systematic'; this should be corrected.
  3. [Section V] The sentence 'We will discuss our findings in the following section' appears twice consecutively at the start of Section V and should be removed once.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated in the list, including [3], [28], [59], [65], and [66]; the list should be deduplicated and the in-text citation ranges cleaned up.
  5. [Section III] The cosine similarity threshold of 0.9 is justified by reference [1], which is a railway-domain requirements study; the transferability of this threshold to app-store feature consolidation should be briefly justified.
  6. [Section III and reference [63]] The replication package link in reference [63] uses the placeholder 'SecretActionDeveloper' and may not be a working repository; the authors should provide a valid, anonymized link for review and a permanent DOI in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline maturity split is a descriptive count of manual labels, not a derivation from inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result—86.21% of apps in early AI stages versus 13.79% advanced—is a descriptive tally of manually assigned Gartner AI-maturity labels, not a quantity derived from a fitted model or an equation. Section III states that features were extracted by a fine-tuned llama3.1-8b model, human-corrected, consolidated via cosine similarity, and then 'we manually classified each application into one of the levels of AIMMs.' Section IV-B simply reports the resulting counts (70 Awareness, 30 Active, 11 Operational, 5 Systematic, 0 Transformational). The maturity label is not computed from the feature list by a formula that makes the label equal to its inputs by construction; it is a human judgment step whose reliability is a construct-validity threat. The authors explicitly acknowledge this in Section VI: 'classifying AI capabilities and maturity levels inevitably involves subjective judgment, which may have introduced bias,' and 'some applications may include undocumented backend AI functionalities.' These are validity limitations, not circularity. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The many self-citations in the discussion (e.g., references [27]–[50]) are contextual and do not carry the measurement argument. The result is therefore self-contained as an empirical, descriptive finding; whether the mapping from app-store descriptions to Gartner levels is valid is a measurement-validity question, not a circularity question.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. It relies on the Gartner maturity framework, LLM-based feature extraction, and manual expert judgment as the core analytical inputs. The single explicit numeric parameter is the cosine similarity threshold of 0.9.

free parameters (1)
  • cosine similarity threshold = 0.9
    Used to consolidate similar features into clusters; chosen with reference to related work [1], not fitted to the maturity result. Changes in this threshold would alter the feature count and potentially the maturity classification.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gartner AI maturity model is applicable to individual consumer mobile apps.
    The model was designed for organizational AI maturity; the paper applies it to individual apps based on visible features, a leap that shapes all results. Location: Section III-A.
  • domain assumption App store descriptions accurately reflect actual app functionality.
    The authors use Google Play descriptions as the sole source of features; the paper itself notes in Section VI that some apps may have undocumented backend AI. This assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Manual expert classification into maturity stages is consistent and unbiased.
    No inter-rater reliability or coding scheme details are provided. The paper admits 'subjective judgment, which may have introduced bias' in Section VI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Foundational Models on Patient-Centric e-Health Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54MYOP7V

@misc{pith2026250721882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Foundational Models on Patient-Centric e-Health Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54MYOP7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21882}
}
read the original abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in healthcare technologies, understanding the maturity of AI in patient-centric applications is critical for evaluating its trustworthiness, transparency, and real-world impact. In this study, we investigate the integration and maturity of AI feature integration in 116 patient-centric healthcare applications. Using Large Language Models (LLMs), we extracted key functional features, which are then categorized into different stages of the Gartner AI maturity model. Our results show that over 86.21\% of applications remain at the early stages of AI integration, while only 13.79% demonstrate advanced AI integration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Methodology Overview: (1) We prepared a dataset to fine-tune the LLaMA model. (2) The model was then used to extract and consolidate application features. (3) Each app was classified into an AI maturity level using the Gartner framework. assess the extent of AI and FMs integration. RQ2: Given the growing popularity of FMs, what is the current state of AI maturity in e-Health applications? To address this question, w… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbas, A

    M. Abbas, A. Ferrari, A. Shatnawi, E. Enoiu, M. Saadatmand, and D. Sundmark. On the relationship between similar requirements and similar software: A case study in the railway domain. Requirements Engineering, 28(1):2347, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Ahmed, S

    F. Ahmed, S. Datta, and M. Nayebi. Negative results of image processing for identifying duplicate questions on stack overflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05523, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ahmed, X

    F. Ahmed, X. Tan, O. Adewole, and M. Nayebi. Inferring questions from programming screenshots. In 22nd International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) , 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Al Kuwaiti, K

    A. Al Kuwaiti, K. Nazer, A. Al-Reedy, S. Al-Shehri, A. Al-Muhanna, A. V. Subbarayalu, D. Al Muhanna, and F. A. Al-Muhanna. A review of the role of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Journal of personalized medicine, 13(6):951, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A. A. Al -Subaihin, F. Sarro, S. Black, L. Capra, and M. Harman. App store effects on software engineering practices. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(2):300– 319, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Alsheibani, Y

    S. Alsheibani, Y. Cheung, and C. H. Messom. Towards an artificial intelligence maturity model: From science fiction to business facts. In PACIS, page 46, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Capilla, B

    R. Capilla, B. Gallina, C. Cetina, and J. Favaro. Opportunities for software reuse in an uncertain world: From past to emerging trends. Journal of software: Evolution and process , 31(8):e2217, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Crema, G

    C. Crema, G. Attardi, D. Sartiano, and A. Redolfi. Natural language processing in clinical neuroscience and psychiatry: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13:946387, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Elangovan, L

    A. Elangovan, L. Liu, L. Xu, S. Bodapati, and D. Roth. Considers- the-human evaluation framework: Rethinking human evaluation for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18638, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H. Face. bertbasenlimeantokens. https://huggingface.co/sentencetrans formers/bertbasenlimeantokens, 2024. Accessed: 20240905

    2024

  3. [11]

    Filistrucchi

    L. Filistrucchi. Market definition in multi-sided markets. Rethinking antitrust tools for multi-sided platforms , 37, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Finkelstein, M

    A. Finkelstein, M. Harman, Y. Jia, W. Martin, F. Sarro, and Y. Zhang. Investigating the relationship between price, rating, and popularity in the blackberry world app store. Information and Software Technology , 87:119–139, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    The cio’s guide to artificial intelligence

    Gartner, Inc. The cio’s guide to artificial intelligence. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/the-cios-guide-to-artificial- intelligences, 2018. Accessed: 2025-04-07

    2018

  6. [14]

    Hashemi, M

    Y. Hashemi, M. Nayebi, and G. Antoniol. Documentation of machine learning software. In 2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) , pages 666–

    2020

  7. [15]

    Y. He, F. Huang, X. Jiang, Y. Nie, M. Wang, J. Wang, and H. Chen. Foundation model for advancing healthcare: challenges, opportunities and future directions. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering , 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Hossain, R

    E. Hossain, R. Rana, N. Higgins, J. Soar, P. D. Barua, A. R. Pisani, and K. Turner. Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision -making: a systematic review. Computers in biology and medicine, 155:106649, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    google-play-scraper, 2024

    JoMingyu. google-play-scraper, 2024. Accessed: 2025-04-07

    2024

  10. [18]

    B. Jullien. Competition in multi-sided markets: Divide and conquer. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(4):186– 219, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    S. J. Kabeer, M. Nayebi, G. Ruhe, C. Carlson, and F. Chew. Predicting the vector impact of change-an industrial case study at brightsquid. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) , pages 131–140. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    U. A. Koana, F. Chew, C. Carlson, and M. Nayebi. Ownership in the hands of accountability at brightsquid: A case study and a developer survey. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering...

    2008

  13. [21]

    U. A. Koana, Q. H. Le, S. Raman, C. Carlson, F. Chew, and M. Nayebi. Examining ownership models in software teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(6):1– 43, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    M. E. Larsen, J. Nicholas, and H. Christensen. Quantifying app store dynamics: longitudinal tracking of mental health apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(3):e6020, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Lichtenthaler

    U. Lichtenthaler. Five maturity levels of managing ai: From isolated ignorance to integrated intelligence. Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1):39–50, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Maalej, M

    W. Maalej, M. Nayebi, and G. Ruhe. Data-driven requirements engineering-an update. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Confer - ence on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE- SEIP), pages 289–290. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    H. Mili, I. Benzarti, A. Elkharraz, G. Elboussaidi, Y. -G. Gue´he´neuc, and P. Valtchev. Discovering reusable functional features in legacy object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 49(7):3827–3856, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Motger, A

    Q. Motger, A. Miaschi, F. Dell’Orletta, X. Franch, and J. Marco. Tfrex: A transformerbased feature extraction method from mobile app reviews. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) , page 227238. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    M. Nayebi. Analytical Release Management for Mobile Apps . PhD thesis, PhD thesis, University of Calgary, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    M. Nayebi. Data driven requirements engineering: Implications for the community. In 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pages 439–441. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    M. Nayebi. Eye of the mind: Image processing for social coding. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results , pages 49 –52, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Nayebi, B

    M. Nayebi, B. Adams, and G. Ruhe. Release practices for mobile apps – what do users and developers think? In 2016 ieee 23rd international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (saner) , volume 1, pages 552– 562. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Nayebi, Y

    M. Nayebi, Y. Cai, R. Kazman, G. Ruhe, Q. Feng, C. Carlson, and F. Chew. A longitudinal study of identifying and paying down architec - ture debt. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), pages 171–

    2019

  24. [32]

    Nayebi, H

    M. Nayebi, H. Cho, H. Farrahi, and G. Ruhe. App store mining is not enough. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE -C), pages 152–154. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Nayebi, H

    M. Nayebi, H. Cho, and G. Ruhe. App store mining is not enough for app improvement. Empirical Software Engineering , 23:2764– 2794, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Nayebi, L

    M. Nayebi, L. Dicke, R. Ittyipe, C. Carlson, and G. Ruhe. Essmart way to manage customer requests. Empirical Software Engineering, 24:3755–3789, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Nayebi, H

    M. Nayebi, H. Farahi, and G. Ruhe. Which version should be released to app store? In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), pages 324–333. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Nayebi, H

    M. Nayebi, H. Farrahi, A. Lee, H. Cho, and G. Ruhe. More insight from being more focused: analysis of clustered market apps. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on App Market Analytics , pages 30– 36, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Nayebi, H

    M. Nayebi, H. Farrahi, and G. Ruhe. Analysis of marketed versus not - marketed mobile app releases. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Release Engineering, pages 1 –4, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Nayebi, S

    M. Nayebi, S. J. Kabeer, G. Ruhe, C. Carlson, and F. Chew. Hybrid labels are the new measure! IEEE Software, 35(1):54– 57, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Nayebi, K

    M. Nayebi, K. Kuznetsov, P. Chen, A. Zeller, and G. Ruhe. Anatomy of functionality deletion: an exploratory study on mobile apps. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pages 243–253, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Nayebi, K

    M. Nayebi, K. Kuznetsov, A. Zeller, and G. Ruhe. User driven functionality deletion for mobile apps. In 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) , pages 6–16. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Nayebi, K

    M. Nayebi, K. Kuznetsov, A. Zeller, and G. Ruhe. Recommending and release planning of user -driven functionality deletion for mobile apps. Requirements Engineering, 29(4):459 –480, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Nayebi, M

    M. Nayebi, M. Marbouti, R. Quapp, F. Maurer, and G. Ruhe. Crowd- sourced exploration of mobile app features: A case study of the fort mcmurray wildfire. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society Track (ICSE- SEIS), ...

    2017

  35. [43]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. Analytical open innovation for value-optimized service portfolio planning. In Software Business. Towards Continuous Value Delivery: 5th International Conference, ICSOB 2014, Paphos, Cyprus, June 16-18, 2014. Proceedings 5, pages 273–288. Springer, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. An open innovation approach in support of product release decisions. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, pages 64–71, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. Analytical product release planning. In The art and science of analyzing software data, pages 555– 589. Elsevier, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. Trade-off service portfolio planning –a case study on mining the android app market. Technical report, PeerJ PrePrints, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. Optimized functionality for super mobile apps. In 2017 IEEE 25th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pages 388–393. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Nayebi and G

    M. Nayebi and G. Ruhe. Asymmetric release planning: Compromising satisfaction against dissatisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 45(9):839– 857, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Nayebi, G

    M. Nayebi, G. Ruhe, R. C. Mota, and M. Mufti. Analytics for software project management –where are we and where do we go? In 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering Workshop (ASEW) , pages 18–21. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Nayebi, G

    M. Nayebi, G. Ruhe, and T. Zimmermann. Mining treatment-outcome constructs from sequential software engineering data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(2):393– 411, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Onagh and M

    E. Onagh and M. Nayebi. Extension decisions in open source software ecosystem. Journal of Systems and Software , page 112552, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    D. E. O’Leary. The impact of gartner’s maturity curve, adoption curve, strategic technologies on information systems research, with applications to artificial intelligence, erp, bpm, and rfid. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 6(1):45 –66, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    F. Pepe, C. Farkas, M. Nayebi, G. Antoniol, and M. Di Penta. How do papers make into machine learning frameworks: A preliminary study on tensorflow. In 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2025) , 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Ramos, A

    L. Ramos, A. Mullen, and P. den Hamer. The cio’s guide to building an ai roadmap that drives value. Gartner, 2025. Accessed: 2025-04-07

    2025

  47. [55]

    Ruhe and M

    G. Ruhe and M. Nayebi. What counts is decisions, not numbers—toward an analytics design sheet. In Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering, pages 111– 114. Elsevier, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    G. Ruhe, M. Nayebi, and C. Ebert. The vision: Requirements en- gineering in society. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) , pages 478–479. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Sa¨llberg, S

    H. Sa¨llberg, S. Wang, and E. Numminen. The combinatory role of online ratings and reviews in mobile app downloads: an empirical investigation of gaming and productivity apps from their initial app store launch. Journal of Marketing Analytics , 11(3):426–442, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    S. G. Saroar, W. Ahmed, E. Onagh, and M. Nayebi. Github marketplace for automation and innovation in software production. Information and Software Technology , page 107522, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    S. G. Saroar, W. Ahmed, E. Onagh, and M. Nayebi. Github marketplace: Driving automation and fostering innovation in software development. In 2025 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) . Journal First, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    S. G. Saroar and M. Nayebi. Developers’ perception of github actions: A survey analysis. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pages 121–130, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    cosine similarity

    Scikitlearn. cosine similarity. https://scikitlearn.org, 2024. Accessed: 20240905

    2024

  54. [62]

    Secinaro, D

    S. Secinaro, D. Calandra, A. Secinaro, V. Muthurangu, and P. Biancone. The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a structured literature review. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 21:1– 23, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    The impact of foundational models on patient - centric ehealth systems

    SecretActionDeveloper. The impact of foundational models on patient - centric ehealth systems. https://github.com/SecretActionDeveloper/The - Impact-of-Foundational-Models-on-Patient-Centric-eHealth-Systems,

  56. [64]

    Tan and J

    G. Tan and J. Zhou. The effects of competition and entry in multi -sided markets. The Review of Economic Studies , 88(2):1002– 1030, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    X. Tan, D. Yadav, F. Ahmed, and M. Nayebi. Imager: Enhancing bug report clarity by screenshots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01925, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    S. P. Thirimanne, E. Y. Lemango, G. Antoniol, and M. Nayebi. One documentation does not fit all: Case study of tensorflow documentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01939, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y. Tian, M. Nagappan, D. Lo, and A. E. Hassan. What are the charac - teristics of high -rated apps? a case study on free android applications. In 2015 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME) , pages 301–310. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  60. [68]

    Vogelsang

    A. Vogelsang. From specifications to prompts: On the future of generative large language models in requirements engineering. IEEE Software, 41(5):913, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    K. Wazny. Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview. Journal of global health, 8(1):010502, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    Wornow, Y

    M. Wornow, Y. Xu, R. Thapa, B. Patel, E. Steinberg, S. Fleming, M. A. Pfeffer, J. Fries, and N. H. Shah. The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records. npj digital medicine, 6(1):135, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    W. Xu, Y. Liu, et al. mhealthapps: a repository and database of mobile health apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(1):e4026, 2015

    2015

  64. [72]

    Yablonsky

    S. Yablonsky. Ai-driven platform enterprise maturity: from human led to machine governed. Kybernetes, 50(10):2753– 2789, 2021

    2021

  65. [73]

    I. J. B. Young, S. Luz, and N. Lone. A systematic review of natural language processing for classification tasks in the field of incident reporting and adverse event analysis. International journal of medical informatics, 132:103971, 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    Zheng, W.-L

    L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y. Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. Xing, et al. Judging llm -as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:46595–46623, 2023

    2023

  67. [2025]

    Accessed: 2025-04- 14

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.