MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Conductive Hydrogels for Bioelectronics

2020· article· en· W3080858763 on OpenAlexafffund
Fanfan Fu, Jilei Wang, Hongbo Zeng, Jing Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Materials Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation SingaporeCanada Research ChairsAgency for Science, Technology and Research
KeywordsBioelectronicsSelf-healing hydrogelsNanotechnologyMaterials scienceBiocompatibilityElectrical conductorConductive polymerWearable computerTissue engineeringElectrically conductiveBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringBiosensorPolymerComposite materialEmbedded systemPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conductive hydrogels are widely used in various applications, such as artificial skin, flexible and implantable bioelectronics, and tissue engineering. However, it is still a challenge to formulate hydrogels with high electrical conductivity without compromising their physicochemical properties (e.g., toughness, stretchability, and biocompatibility). Additionally, incorporating other functions, such as self-healing, shape memory, and wet adhesion, into conductive hydrogels is critical to many practical applications of hydrogel bioelectronics. In this Review, we highlight recent progress in the development of functional conductive hydrogels. We, then, discuss the potential applications and challenges faced by conductive hydrogels in the areas of wearable/implantable electronics and cell/tissue engineering. Conductive hydrogel can serve as an important building block for bioelectronic devices in personalized healthcare and other bioengineering areas.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations350
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Materials LettersSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207