Boosting hydrogel conductivity via water-dispersible conducting polymers for injectable bioelectronics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioelectronic devices hold transformative potential for healthcare diagnostics and therapeutics. Yet, traditional electronic implants often require invasive surgeries and are mechanically incompatible with biological tissues. Injectable hydrogel bioelectronics offer a minimally invasive alternative that interfaces with soft tissue seamlessly. A major challenge is the low conductivity of bioelectronic systems, stemming from poor dispersibility of conductive additives in hydrogel mixtures. We address this issue by engineering doping conditions with hydrophilic biomacromolecules, enhancing the dispersibility of conductive polymers in aqueous systems. This approach achieves a 5-fold increase in dispersibility and a 20-fold boost in conductivity compared to conventional methods. The resulting conductive polymers are molecularly and in vivo degradable, making them suitable for transient bioelectronics applications. These additives are compatible with various hydrogel systems, such as alginate, forming ionically cross-linkable conductive inks for 3D-printed wearable electronics toward high-performance physiological monitoring. Furthermore, integrating conductive fillers with gelatin-based bioadhesive hydrogels substantially enhances conductivity for injectable sealants, achieving 250% greater sensitivity in pH sensing for chronic wound monitoring. Our findings indicate that hydrophilic dopants effectively tailor conducting polymers for hydrogel fillers, enhancing their biodegradability and expanding applications in transient implantable biomonitoring.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".