Advances in Wearable Bioimaging

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Not reported.

• Effect Size: Not applicable — no pooled effect size reported. Individual device performance metrics (e.g., image resolution, penetration depth, signal-to-noise ratio) are discussed qualitatively within the narrative.

• Primary Outcome: No primary clinical outcome defined or reported. The review describes technological advances in miniaturising imaging modalities into wearable form factors, including EIT belts, flexible ultrasound patches, and photoacoustic patches.

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not reported. No diagnostic accuracy metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC, NNT) are synthesised. The review does not provide clinically actionable performance benchmarks for any wearable imaging modality.

• Confidence Interval: Not reported — no quantitative synthesis performed.

Clinical Application

Clinical feasibility remains largely unproven. The review identifies significant outstanding challenges including device miniaturisation, power supply, wireless data transmission, skin-device interface durability, motion artefact management, image reconstruction algorithms, regulatory approval pathways, and long-term biocompatibility. Translation from bench to bedside is at an early stage for most described technologies. Wearable bioimaging technologies described in this review are not currently listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) as approved diagnostic devices for clinical use. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) would require rigorous clinical validation data — including diagnostic accuracy studies in relevant patient populations — before regulatory approval. The PBS does not currently fund wearable imaging modalities. From an RACGP perspective, these technologies may have future relevance to remote and rural health monitoring, where access to facility-based imaging is a recognised barrier to care. However, no practice guideline changes are warranted based on this review alone. Australian clinicians should monitor TGA Class IIb/III medical device approval pathways as this field matures. Potentially applicable to patients requiring continuous or ambulatory physiological monitoring, including those with cardiorespiratory conditions, musculoskeletal disorders, oncological surveillance needs, or those in resource-limited settings where facility-based imaging is inaccessible. However, no specific patient population is validated in this review.

Abstract

The development of wearable bioimaging platforms has accelerated in the era of precision medicine, addressing the limitations of conventional, facility-based systems, which can be costly and difficult to access. In this review, we first outline the operating principles of major imaging modalities, with an emphasis on target tissues and factors that contribute to image quality. Next, we survey advances in miniaturizing these modalities into wearable devices, from electrical impedance tomography belts to flexible ultrasound and photoacoustic patches, highlighting materials selection and fabrication strategies that enhance image quality, skin adhesion, and functional integration. Lastly, we discuss outstanding technical and translational challenges that must be addressed to realize the full potential of these platforms, including safety and long-term use. With sustained research and responsible commercialization, these wearable devices could reshape continuous physiological monitoring and enable more proactive, preventive health management.

References

1. 1.Chen, J., Yin, J., Liu, Y., Kulkarni, N., Saito, E., Saucedo, B. J., Young, M., & Chen, J. (2026). Advances in wearable bioimaging. Advanced Materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202522393