ReviewBiosensors2026
Nanomaterial-Assisted Physical Mass Loading and Signal Amplification Strategies for Exosome Isolation and Sensing in Liquid Biopsy: A Review.
Review in Biosensors, 2026. 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.
- An RCA-Coupled CRISPR/Cas12a Cascade-Enhanced SERS Platform for Ultrasensitive Detection of Exosomal miRNA-21 in Colorectal Cancer Serum.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exosomes and small extracellular vesicles are promising liquid-biopsy biomarkers because they carry molecular information from their cells of origin and can be accessed from minimally invasive biofluids. Reliable separation and detection are made more difficult by their small size, low abundance, diverse composition, and co-occurrence with lipoproteins, protein aggregates, and other extracellular particles. To improve exosome enrichment, capture, and sensing, nanomaterial-assisted techniques have become crucial. Using a mechanism-based approach that differentiates between non-gravimetric signal amplification and genuine physical mass loading, this study offers an organized comparison of nanomaterial-enabled exosome sensing techniques. This distinction is helpful because different transducers measure different physical quantities: while optical, electrochemical, fluorescent, catalytic, and nucleic acid-based platforms typically benefit from enhanced signal generation rather than increased mass, resonant and gravimetric sensors benefit from increased inertial or surface-bound mass. In terms of amplification mechanism, transducer compatibility, sample-matrix tolerance, workflow complexity, and translational maturity, the review contrasts metallic nanoparticles, magnetic systems, metal-organic frameworks, carbon and two-dimensional materials, quantum dots, upconversion nanomaterials, DNA nanostructures, and polymer-based platforms. The gap between analytical sensitivity and clinical utility, including separation purity, recovery, biological heterogeneity, pre-analytical variability, interference from complex biofluids, and the need for uniform validation, is given special focus. The review concludes that no single nanomaterial or amplification method is universally optimal; instead, platform-aware, application-specific integration of isolation, amplification, and validation techniques is necessary for clinically meaningful exosome sensing.
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.