ArticleScientific reports2022
Bio-acceptability of wearable sensors: a mechanistic study towards evaluating ionic leaching induced cellular inflammation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scavenging of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species using nanoparticles and their applications in disease management.RSC advances · 2025Review
- MXene electrochemical phosphate sensors.Communications engineering · 2025Article
- Ultrathin Soft Wearable Sensor Materials and Structures: A Review of Current Trends and Prospectives.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Review
- Advanced Metal-Organic Framework-Based Sensor Systems for Gas and Environmental Monitoring: From Material Design to Embedded Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cold atmospheric plasma deposition of antibacterial polypyrrole-silver nanocomposites on wearable electronics for prolonged performance.Journal of materials chemistry. C · 2024Article
- Heavy-to-light electron transition enabling real-time spectra detection of charged particles by a biocompatible semiconductor.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Review
- Immuno-chromatic probe based lateral flow assay for point-of-care detection of Japanese encephalitis virus NS1 protein biomarker in clinical samples using a smartphone-based approach.Nanoscale advances · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Assisted Biomedical Systems for Intelligent Healthcare.Biosensors · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent need for remote health wellness monitoring has led to the extensive use of wearable sensors. Owing to their increased use, these sensors are required to exhibit both functionality and safety to the user. A major component in the fabrication of these sensors and their associated circuitry is the use of metallic/organic conductive inks. However, very less is known about the interfacial and molecular interactions of these inks with biological matter as they can result in an inflammatory reaction to the user. Significant efforts are thus needed to explore and improve the bio-acceptability of such conductive ink-based wearable sensors. The present study investigates the biocompatibility of encapsulated and non-encapsulated wearable electrochemical sensors used for sensing uric acid as a biomarker for wound healing fabricated using screen-printing technique. Ionic release of metallic ions was investigated first to understand the susceptibility of the conductive inks towards ionic leaching when in contact with a fluid. Time-lapse investigation using ICPS (inductive couple plasma spectroscopy) shows a high concentration (607.31 ppb) of leached silver (Ag
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.