journal article·2025-12-27Open access

Conformal, ultrathin crystalline-silicon-based Hall sensor arrays with deep learning models for early-stage monitoring of three-dimensional tumor tissues

Junhan Liu, Zhongyuan Wu, Lianjie Zhou, Yanran Shen, Xiaojun Wu, Junling Liang, Yuting Shao, Pengchuan Liu, Zhongzheng Li, Bofan Hu, Ming Wang, Zengfeng Di, Tianjun Cai, Fan Xu, Su Jiang, Mengdi Han, Ling Tao, Yongfeng Mei, Enming Song

npj Flexible Electronics· Volume 10· Issue 1

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 ↗