Conformal, ultrathin crystalline-silicon-based Hall sensor arrays with deep learning models for early-stage monitoring of three-dimensional tumor tissues
Source abstract
Abstract
Dynamic dimension assessments of tumor tissues have broad relevance in clinical diagnosis and the treatment of patients. Current technologies for such a purpose include quasi-static measurements that lack microscale resolution and sensing sites, with limited capabilities for time-dependent, three-dimensional profiling of tumors, particularly at the early growth stage. Here, we report the conformal Hall-sensor-based systems for continuous monitoring of tumor morphological features such as growth rates and volumes. Such platforms incorporate ultrathin crystalline-silicon nanomembranes (200 nm thick) as a basis for displacement sensing via magnetic flux detection, in an array design that yields spatiotemporal information of tumor geometries at high sensitivity. Evaluation involves real-time measurements on a living mouse model with tumor tissues at various pathological conditions, where the integration with deep learning algorithms can further enable the system for large-scale tumor profile reconstruction across tissue surfaces. These microsystems provide the potential for monitoring of tumor progression and treatment guidance in patients.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnetic Field Sensors Techniques · Micro and Nano Robotics · Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. Chen, H., Zhang, W., Zhu, G., Xie, J. & Chen, X. Rethinking cancer nanotheranostics. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17024 (2017).10.1038/natrevmats.2017.24 ↗
2. Mi, P. et al. A pH-activatable nanoparticle with signal-amplification capabilities for non-invasive imaging of tumor malignancy. Nat. Nanotech. 11, 724–730 (2016).10.1038/nnano.2016.72 ↗
3. Coombes, R. C. et al. Personalized detection of circulating tumor DNA antedates breast cancer metastatic recurrence. Clin. Cancer Res. 25, 4255–4263 (2019).10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3663 ↗
4. Moding, E. J., Nabet, B. Y., Alizadeh, A. A. & Diehn, M. Detecting liquid remnants of solid tumors: circulating tumor DNA minimal residual disease. Cancer Discov. 11, 2968–2986 (2021).10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0634 ↗
5. Davis, L. E., Shalin, S. C. & Tackett, A. J. Current state of melanoma diagnosis and treatment. Cancer Biol. Ther. 20, 1366–1379 (2019).10.1080/15384047.2019.1640032 ↗
6. Folkman, J. Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N. Engl. J. Med. 285, 1182–1186 (1971).10.1056/NEJM197111182852108 ↗
7. Friberg, S. & Mattson, S. On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision making. J. Surg. Oncol. 65, 284–297 (1997).10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199708)65:4<284::AID-JSO11>3.0.CO;2-2 ↗
8. Ortmann, J. et al. Assessing therapy response in patient-derived xenografts. Sci. Transl. Med. 13, eabf4969 (2021).10.1126/scitranslmed.abf4969 ↗
9. Enderling, H. & Chaplain, H. E. M. Mathematical modeling of tumor growth and treatment. Curr. Pharm. Des. 20, 4934–4940 (2014).10.2174/1381612819666131125150434 ↗
10. Song, E. et al. Miniaturized electromechanical devices for the characterization of the biomechanics of deep tissue. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 5, 759–771 (2021).10.1038/s41551-021-00723-y ↗
11. Zheng, Y. & Mak, A. F. T. Effective elastic properties for lower limb soft tissues from manual indentation experiment. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 7, 257–267 (1999).10.1109/86.788463 ↗
12. Gennisson, J.-L. et al. Assessment of elastic parameters of human skin using dynamic elastography. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 51, 980–989 (2004).10.1109/TUFFC.2004.1324402 ↗
13. Zhang, W. et al. Real-time, volumetric imaging of radiation dose delivery deep into the liver during cancer treatment. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1160–1167 (2023).10.1038/s41587-022-01593-8 ↗
14. Prasad, S. R. et al. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques—initial observations. Radiology 225, 416–419 (2002).10.1148/radiol.2252011604 ↗
15. Taylor, F. G. M. et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the mercury study. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 34–43 (2014).10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3258 ↗
16. Mann, R. M. N. & Moy, C. L. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology 292, 520–536 (2019).10.1148/radiol.2019182947 ↗
17. Saini, S. Multi–detector row CT: principles and practice for abdominal applications. Radiology 233, 323–327 (2004).10.1148/radiol.2332030994 ↗
18. Hu, J. & Soleimani, M. Combining multiple boundary shapes in deformable EIT a potential use in breast imaging. IEEE Sens. Lett. 4, 1–4 (2020).
19. Doucey, M.-A. & Carrara, S. Nanowire sensors in cancer. Trends. Biotechnol. 37, 86–99 (2019).10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.014 ↗
20. Elaibi, H. K., Mutlag, F. F., Halvaci, E., Aygun, A. & Sen, F. Review: Comparison of traditional and modern diagnostic methods in breast cancer. Measurement 242, 116258 (2025).10.1016/j.measurement.2024.116258 ↗
21. Hu, S. et al. An electrode array sensor for tongue cancer detection with bioelectrical impedance spectroscopic tomography. IEEE Sens. J. 22, 15146–15153 (2022).10.1109/JSEN.2022.3184342 ↗
22. Wang, L. et al. Functionalized helical fibre bundles of carbon nanotubes as electrochemical sensors for long-term in vivo monitoring of multiple disease biomarkers. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4, 159–171 (2019).10.1038/s41551-019-0462-8 ↗
23. Kim, K. et al. Fully implantable and battery-free wireless optoelectronic system for modulable cancer therapy and real-time monitoring. npj Flex. Electron. 7, 41 (2023).10.1038/s41528-023-00276-x ↗
24. Siboro, P. Y. et al. Harnessing HfO2 nanoparticles for wearable tumor monitoring and sonodynamic therapy in advancing cancer care. ACS Nano. 18, 2485–2499 (2024).10.1021/acsnano.3c11346 ↗
25. Abramson, A. et al. A flexible electronic strain sensor for the real-time monitoring of tumor regression. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn6550 (2022).10.1126/sciadv.abn6550 ↗
26. Geng, S. et al. Ultrasensitive optical detection and elimination of residual microtumors with a postoperative implantable hydrogel sensor for preventing cancer recurrence. Adv. Mater. 36, 2307923 (2024).10.1002/adma.202307923 ↗
27. Lee, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-Y., Kuo, C.-K. & Fu, L.-M. Design and application of mems-based hall sensor array for magnetic field mapping. Micromachines 12, 299 (2021).10.3390/mi12030299 ↗
28. Li, R. et al. A spin–orbit torque device for sensing three-dimensional magnetic fields. Nat. Electron. 4, 179–184 (2021).10.1038/s41928-021-00542-8 ↗
29. Zieren, V. A new silicon micro-transducer for the measurement of the magnitude and direction of a magnetic-field vector. Paper Presented at the 1980 International Electron Devices Meeting, IEEE, Washington, USA, 8 (1980).10.1109/IEDM.1980.189924 ↗
30. Heremans, J. Solid-state magnetic-field sensors and applications. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 26, 1149–1168 (1993).10.1088/0022-3727/26/8/001 ↗
31. Hu, H. et al. Large-area magnetic skin for multi-point and multi-scale tactile sensing with super-resolution. npj Flex. Electron. 8, 42 (2024).10.1038/s41528-024-00325-z ↗
32. Wan, J. et al. Millimeter-scale magnetic implants paired with a fully integrated wearable device for wireless biophysical and biochemical sensing. Sci. Adv. 10, eadm9314 (2024).10.1126/sciadv.adm9314 ↗
33. Mostufa, S., Yari, P., Rezaei, B., Xu, K. & Wu, K. Flexible magnetic field nanosensors for wearable electronics: a review. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 6, 13732–13765 (2023).10.1021/acsanm.3c01936 ↗
34. Hu, H. et al. Wireless flexible magnetic tactile sensor with super-resolution in large-areas. ACS Nano. 16, 19271–19280 (2022).10.1021/acsnano.2c08664 ↗
35. Pan, L. et al. Flexible magnetic sensors. Sensors 23, 4083 (2023).10.3390/s23084083 ↗
36. Melzer, M. et al. Wearable magnetic field sensors for flexible electronics. Adv. Mater. 27, 1274–1280 (2014).10.1002/adma.201405027 ↗
37. Cañón et al. Electronic-skin compasses for geomagnetic field-driven artificial magnetoreception and interactive electronics. Nat. Electron. 1, 589–595 (2018).10.1038/s41928-018-0161-6 ↗
38. Oliveros-Mata, E. S. et al. Dispenser printed bismuth-based magnetic field sensors with non-saturating large magnetoresistance for touchless interactive surfaces. Adv. Mater. Technol. 7, 2200227 (2022).10.1002/admt.202200227 ↗
39. Wang, X. et al. Physical investigations on bias-free, photo-induced hall sensors based on Pt/GaAs and Pt/Si schottky junctions. Sensors 21, 3009 (2021).10.3390/s21093009 ↗
40. Berus, T., Oszwaldowski, M. & Grabowski, J. High quality Hall sensors made of heavily doped n-InSb epitaxial films. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 116, 75–78 (2004).10.1016/j.sna.2004.03.029 ↗
41. Kaidarova, B. A. et al. Flexible Hall sensor made of laser-scribed graphene. npj Flex. Electron. 5, 2 (2021).10.1038/s41528-021-00100-4 ↗
42. Wang, Z., Shaygan, M., Otto, M., Schall, D. & Neumaier, D. Flexible Hall sensors based on graphene. Nanoscale 8, 7683–7687 (2016).10.1039/C5NR08729E ↗
43. Uzlu, B. et al. Gate-tunable graphene-based Hall sensors on flexible substrates with increased sensitivity. Sci. Rep. 9, 18059 (2019).10.1038/s41598-019-54489-0 ↗
44. Shah, N. et al. Highly stable integration of graphene Hall sensors on a microfluidic platform for magnetic sensing in whole blood. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 9, 71 (2023).10.1038/s41378-023-00530-2 ↗
45. Heidari, H., Bonizzoni, E., Gatti, U., Maloberti, F. & Dahiya, R. CMOS vertical Hall magnetic sensors on flexible substrate. IEEE Sens. J. 16, 8736–8743 (2016).10.1109/JSEN.2016.2575802 ↗
46. Lozanova, S., Noykov, S. & Roumenin, C. Two-axis silicon Hall effect magnetometer. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 267, 177–181 (2017).10.1016/j.sna.2017.10.026 ↗
47. Granell, P. N. et al. Highly compliant planar Hall effect sensor with sub 200 nT sensitivity. npj Flex. Electron. 3, 3 (2019).10.1038/s41528-018-0046-9 ↗
48. Schaefer, B. T. et al. Magnetic field detection limits for ultraclean graphene Hall sensors. Nat. Commun. 11, 4163 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-18007-5 ↗
49. Guo, Z. et al. Geometry optimization of planar hall devices under voltage biasing. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices. 61, 4216–4223 (2014).10.1109/TED.2014.2361686 ↗
50. Lozanova, S., Ivanov, A. & Roumenin, C. Hall sensor with geometry-enhanced sensitivity. Paper Ppresented at the 2020 XXX International Scientific Symposium ‘Metrology and Metrology Assurance’ (MMA 2020), IEEE, Sozopol, Bulgaria (2020).10.1109/MMA49863.2020.9254253 ↗
51. Jiang, Z. et al. A 1.3-micrometre-thick elastic conductor for seamless on-skin and implantable sensors. Nat. Electron. 5, 784–793 (2022).10.1038/s41928-022-00868-x ↗
52. Xu, L. et al. 3D multifunctional integumentary membranes for spatiotemporal cardiac measurements and stimulation across the entire epicardium. Nat. Commun. 5, 3329 (2014).10.1038/ncomms4329 ↗
53. Son, D. et al. Multifunctional wearable devices for diagnosis and therapy of movement disorders. Nat. Nanotech. 9, 397–404 (2014).10.1038/nnano.2014.38 ↗
54. Hu, B. et al. Ultrathin crystalline silicon–based omnidirectional strain gauges for implantable/wearable characterization of soft tissue biomechanics. Sci. Adv. 10, eadp8804 (2024).10.1126/sciadv.adp8804 ↗
55. Hassan, A. et al. A DC to 25 MHz current sensing interface for Hall-effect sensor. IEEE Sens. J. 24, 10316–10325 (2024).10.1109/JSEN.2024.3360462 ↗
56. Rogers, J. A. et al. Synthesis, assembly and applications of semiconductor nanomembranes. Nature 477, 47–53 (2011).10.1038/nature10381 ↗
57. Bal, M., Deng, C., Orgiazzi, J. L., Ong, F. R. & Lupascu, A. Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom. Nat. Commun. 3, 1324 (2012).10.1038/ncomms2332 ↗
58. Wang, Y. J. et al. A review on equivalent magnetic noise of magnetoelectric laminate sensors. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 372, 20120455 (2014).10.1098/rsta.2012.0455 ↗
59. Vervaeke, K., Simoen, E., Borghs, G. & Moshchalkov, V. V. Size dependence of microscopic Hall sensor detection limits. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 074701 (2009).10.1063/1.3160105 ↗
60. Kim, D. H. et al. Materials and noncoplanar mesh designs for integrated circuits with linear elastic responses to extreme mechanical deformations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 19910–19915 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1205923109 ↗
61. Kim, J. et al. Stretchable silicon nanoribbon electronics for skin prosthesis. Nat. Commun. 5, 5747 (2014).10.1038/ncomms6747 ↗
62. Kim, T. et al. Ultrathin crystalline-silicon-based strain gauges with deep learning algorithms for silent speech interfaces. Nat. Commun. 13, 5815 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-33457-9 ↗
63. Jackson, J. D. Classical Electrodynamics 184–188 (Wiley, 1998).
64. Furlani, E. P. Permanent Magnet and Electromechanical Devices: Materials, Analysis, and Applications 126–130 (Academic Press, 2001).10.1016/B978-012269951-1/50005-X ↗
65. Ravaud, R. et al. Cylindrical magnets and coils: fields, forces, and inductances. IEEE Trans. Magn. 46, 3585–3590 (2010).10.1109/TMAG.2010.2049026 ↗
66. Bengio, Y., Simard, P. & Frasconi, P. Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 5, 157–166 (1994).10.1109/72.279181 ↗
67. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. Paper Presented at the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, Las Vegas, USA (2016).10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
68. Song, E. et al. Flexible electronic/optoelectronic microsystems with scalable designs for chronic biointegration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15398–15406 (2019).10.1073/pnas.1907697116 ↗