1. In Section 4.1. Biosensing and Detection Technologies, the text abruptly shifts to a detailed description of FDA-approved breast implants (e.g., Motiva Implants). This content has no logical connection to biosensing, nano-biosensors, or point-of-care devices. Was this paragraph inserted erroneously during manuscript compilation? If it was intentional, please explain its relevance to the section’s diagnostic focus.
2. Figure 3 illustrates the essential elements of a biosensor (bioreceptor, transducer, processor), which is foundational, undergraduate-level material. In a review focusing on innovative architectures, what specific, novel insight does this basic schematic provide that warranted its inclusion over a more advanced concept (e.g., a novel nano-biosensor design or integrated POC system)?
3. In Table 2, Stereolithography (SLA) is listed with a resolution of ~50–100 μm. However, commercial and research-grade SLA printers (e.g., using two-photon or high-resolution DLP) routinely achieve features well below 10 μm. Is the provided resolution data outdated? Please clarify the source and context for these technical specifications.
4. Table 2 is split across three non-consecutive pages (7, 8, 9), directly interrupting the narrative on Two-Photon Polymerization (2.1.5). This severely disrupts the reader’s flow. Was this a formatting error in the final PDF, or was the table’s placement not optimized for readability?
5. Section 6. Challenges and Limitations, lists generic barriers like scalability, biocompatibility, and regulatory hurdles. For a review claiming to explore innovative architectures, why is there no critical discussion of field-specific, pressing issues such as the batch-to-batch variability in self-assembled nanostructures, the lack of standardized in vivo models for evaluating microrobots, or the significant gap between in vitro smart material performance and in vivo efficacy?
