Artificial intelligence–enhanced mapping of the international classification of functioning, disability and health via a mobile app: a randomized controlled trial

Zhandos Kurban, Didar Khassenov, Zhandos K. Burkitbayev, Sholpan A. Bulekbayeva, Azat Chinaliyev, Bakhtiyar Serik, Samat Sagatovich Saparbayev, Султаналиев Т.А., Ulzhalgas Zhunissova, Nataliya Slivkina

5 more authors

E V Titskaya, Luis Arias, Dana Aldakuatova, Gulfairus A. Yessenbayeva, Ermakhan Zhanerke Temirbolatkyzy

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1590401
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: Mobile health applications and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly utilized to streamline clinical workflows and support functional assessment. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a standardized framework for evaluating patient functioning, yet AI-driven ICF mapping tools remain underexplored in routine clinical settings. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the MedQuest mobile application-featuring integrated AI-based ICF mapping-compared to traditional paper-based assessment in hospitalized patients. Methods: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted in two medical centers in Astana, Kazakhstan. A total of 185 adult inpatients (≥18 years) were randomized to either a control group using paper questionnaires or an experimental group using the MedQuest app. Both groups completed identical standardized assessments (SF-12, IPAQ, VAS, Barthel Index, MRC scale). The co-primary outcomes were (1) total questionnaire completion time and (2) agreement between AI-generated and clinician-generated ICF mappings, assessed using quadratic weighted kappa. Secondary outcomes included AI sensitivity/specificity, confusion matrix analysis, and physician usability ratings via the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: = 0.842), with 80.6% of qualifiers matching exactly. The AI demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for common functional domains (e.g., codes 1-2), though performance decreased for rare qualifiers. The micro-averaged sensitivity and specificity were 0.806 and 0.952, respectively. Mean SUS score among physicians was 86.8, indicating excellent usability and acceptability. Conclusion: The MedQuest mobile application significantly improved workflow efficiency and demonstrated strong concordance between AI- and clinician-assigned ICF mappings. These findings support the feasibility of integrating AI-assisted tools into routine clinical documentation. A hybrid model, combining AI automation with clinician oversight, may enhance accuracy and reduce documentation burden in time-constrained healthcare environments. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT07021781.