Skin-like hydrogel devices for wearable sensing, soft robotics and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin-like electronics are developing rapidly to realize a variety of applications such as wearable sensing and soft robotics. Hydrogels, as soft biomaterials, have been studied intensively for skin-like electronic utilities due to their unique features such as softness, wetness, biocompatibility and ionic sensing capability. These features could potentially blur the gap between soft biological systems and hard artificial machines. However, the development of skin-like hydrogel devices is still in its infancy and faces challenges including limited functionality, low ambient stability, poor surface adhesion, and relatively high power consumption (as ionic sensors). This review aims to summarize current development of skin-inspired hydrogel devices to address these challenges. We first conduct an overview of hydrogels and existing strategies to increase their toughness and conductivity. Next, we describe current approaches to leverage hydrogel devices with advanced merits including anti-dehydration, anti-freezing, and adhesion. Thereafter, we highlight state-of-the-art skin-like hydrogel devices for applications including wearable electronics, soft robotics, and energy harvesting. Finally, we conclude and outline the future trends.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".