ReviewIEEE reviews in biomedical engineering2025
Glucose Fuel Cells: Electricity From Blood Sugar.
Review in IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, 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.
- A Review on Catalytic Nanostructured Electrodes for Wearable and Implantable Abiotic Glucose Fuel Cells.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Biofuel Cells Based on Oxidoreductases and Electroactive Nanomaterials: Development and Characterization.Biosensors · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Harvesting energy from the human body is an area of growing interest. While several techniques have been explored, the focus in the field is converging on using Glucose Fuel Cells (GFCs) that use glucose oxidation reactions at an anode and oxygen reduction reactions (ORRs) at a cathode to create a voltage gradient that can be stored as power. To facilitate these reactions, catalysts are immobilized at an anode and cathode that result in electrochemistry that typically produces two electrons, a water molecule, and gluconic acid. There are two competing classes of these catalysts: enzymes, which use organic proteins, and abiotic options, which use reactive metals. Enzymatic catalysts show better specificity towards glucose, whereas abiotic options show superior operational stability. The most advanced enzymatic test showed a maximum power density of 119 µW/cm2 and an efficiency loss of 4% over 15 hours of operation. The best abiotic experiment resulted in 43 µW/cm2 and exhibited no signs of performance loss after 140 hours. Given the range of existing implantable devices' power budget from 10 µW to 100 mW and expected operational duration of 10 years or more, GFCs hold promise, but considerable advances need to be made to translate this technology to practical applications.
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.