ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Can we still use the Michaelis-Menten model for enzymatic microneedle sensors?
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A closed-loop microneedle-integrated physiological model for predictive glycemic management.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 1960s, enzymatic sensors have been vital in healthcare and environmental monitoring due to their high selectivity. Traditionally, their performance is interpreted using the Michaelis-Menten (MM) equation, which assumes idealized, homogeneous, well-mixed laboratory conditions. However, integrating these sensors with microneedle (MN) patches for wearable applications introduces challenges such as spatial and temporal variations and limited reactant availability. Applying the MM model in such scenarios can lead to dramatic errors in enzyme kinetics and biomarker estimates, risking inaccurate substrate measurements and potentially life-threatening decisions. Here, we generalize the reaction-diffusion framework for enzymatic sensors and integrate it with analytical models for MN sensors. Our approach captures time-dependent MM variables, quantifies the rate of product formation, accounts for mass transport limitations, and provides expressions for response time and active substrate levels. This physics-based framework enables a) quantification of otherwise inaccessible parameters such as active substrate levels, b) accurate response-time predictions to reach steady-state conditions, c) improved data interpretation, and d) projection of enzymatic responses across various conditions. The study highlights the need for careful application of MM model in wearable microneedle sensors, where key assumptions may not hold. Our model can also extend to sensor degradation, inactivation, and hypoxia, making it broadly applicable to enzymatic sensors in diverse environments.
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.