MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405487985 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2024.3515893

Photodetector Innovations for Advancing Wearable Optical Biosensors: A Review

2024· review· en· W4405487985 on OpenAlexafffund
Zobair Ebrahimi, Benoit Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotodetectorWearable computerBiosensorComputer scienceOptical sensingOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyMaterials scienceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical biosensors such as photoplethysmography (PPG), pulse oximetry, and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) are critical health monitoring tools, providing critical insights into physiological indicators such as heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation, blood pressure (BP), and respiratory rate (RR). At the core of these sensors are photodetectors (PDs), which are available in various types, including inorganic [such as p-n, p-i-n, avalanche, CMOS, single-photon avalanche, silicon photomultiplier (SiPM), and dynamic PDs (DPDs)] and organic (such as bulk heterojunction (BHJ), photomultiplication (PM), and hybrid CMOS PDs). The choice of a PD significantly influences optical biosensor performance by affecting key factors such as photosensitivity, detectivity, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), dynamic range (DR), low-light detection, parasitic capacitance, dark current, noise, power consumption, and design complexity. This article provides a detailed review of the latest innovations in PDs and their associated readout circuit designs, highlighting how they enhance the performance of optical biosignal sensing. It also explores future trends in PD development, including high-mobility semiconductors, ultrathin PD layers, and novel fabrication techniques that are driving the evolution of the next-generation biosignal sensing solutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207