Back

Machine Learning Analysis of User Sentiments in Tinnitus Management Apps

Yousaf, M. N.; Anwar, M. N.; Naveed, N.; Haider, U.

2026-02-22 health informatics
10.64898/2026.02.19.26346680 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTinnitus affects a substantial proportion of the global population and can severely disrupt sleep, mood, and daily functioning, yet the quality of mobile health apps designed for tinnitus management remains highly variable. Traditional evaluation methods, including clinical trials, expert rating scales, and small-scale surveys, rarely capture large-scale, feature-level feedback from real-world users, leaving a gap in understanding which app characteristics drive sustained engagement and satisfaction. MethodsThis study analysed 342,520 English-language reviews from 84 tinnitus-related apps on iOS and Android collected between 2015 and 2025. A pipeline first applied VADER-based preprocessing and sentiment assignment, then trained a graph neural network aspect-based sentiment analysis (GNN-ABSA) model operating on sentence-level dependency graphs to infer feature-level sentiment for domains such as sound therapy, sleep support, pricing, advertisements, stability, and user interface. ResultsThe GNN-ABSA model achieved an accuracy of 84.4% and a macro F1 score of 0.829 on unseen aspect-level test data, indicating stable performance across sentiment classes. Therapeutic features like sound masking and sleep support were associated with predominantly positive sentiment, whereas pricing, advertisements, background playback, and technical stability attracted more neutral or negative feedback over the ten-year period. ConclusionsLarge-scale, graph-based feature-level sentiment analysis provides a user-cantered perspective that complements clinical trials and expert app quality ratings, offering actionable guidance for developers seeking to prioritize design improvements, supporting clinicians in recommending suitable apps to patients, and informing the design of more explainable and user-driven digital health tools. Trial RegistrationNot applicable. This study analysed publicly available app store reviews and did not involve human participants.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.5%
2
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.8%
3
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.4%
4
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.1%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.3%
8
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
10
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
11
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
16
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
17
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
18
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
21
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
25
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%