MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158341467 · doi:10.1088/1361-665x/abefb6

Soft flexible conductive CNT nanocomposites for ECG monitoring

2021· article· en· W3158341467 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Chu, Hani E. Naguib

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPercolation thresholdCarbon nanotubeNanocompositeThermoplastic polyurethaneElectrical conductorElectrodeComposite numberElastomerElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the continuing development and interest in wearable electronics and smart textiles, the need for a flexible conductive electrode for use in portable and wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) for long term monitoring rises. Here, we assess the efficacy and performance of various conductive composite polymers in collecting electrical signals from the heart. Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) were blended with 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% carbon nanotube (CNT) content using ultrasonication and compression molding techniques. The elastic modulus of the composites increased dramatically at 5% CNT and higher due to the high tensile modulus of the CNTs. The conductivity of each material also increased due to the formation of the conductive network past the percolation threshold. At 10% CNT, SBS, TPU, and EVA had conductivities of 257.9, 51.5, and 2.41 S m −1 respectively. TPU and SBS composites had better strain response due to their linearity between resistance and strain. On the acquisition of electrical signals from the heart, only 5% and 10% SBS-CNT composites were able to detect the ECG waves from the heart. The performance of the material met and even exceeded that of the commercial electrodes with slightly less high frequency noise.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Materials and StructuresSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207