Advances in Electrochemical Biosensors for COVID-19 Detection: Progress, Challenges, and Future Perspectives: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 770 million confirmed cases and nearly 7 million deaths globally as of early 2024, highlighting the urgent need for rapid, scalable, and accurate diagnostic tools. Electrochemical biosensors have gained increasing attention due to their miniaturization, affordability, and rapid response time. This review presents a structured and critical summary of electrochemical biosensing strategies applied to COVID-19 diagnostics, with an emphasis on genosensors, immunosensors, and label-free detection techniques. Key electrochemical methods—including voltammetry, amperometry, potentiometry, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy—are discussed in the context of detecting viral proteins, nucleic acids, and antibodies. Notably, over 250 studies published since 2020 have demonstrated biosensors with detection limits as low as 1 fg/mL and response times under 10 min. The integration of nanomaterials such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, and transition metal dichalcogenides is reviewed for their role in enhancing signal output and biorecognition specificity. A bibliometric analysis of 779 articles (1985–2024) highlights global research trends and emerging areas. By consolidating these advancements and limitations, this review aims to guide researchers developing next-generation diagnostic tools for pandemic preparedness and infectious disease control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".