Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Flexure-FET-Based Receiver with Competitive Binding for Interference Mitigation in Molecular Communication

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Modeling how target and interferer molecules compete for receptor sites makes a Flexure-FET molecular receiver tunable and reliable under biological interference

desk verdict A legitimate but incremental modeling extension whose central performance claims rest on ad hoc SNR/SEP definitions and are not supported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22849 v1 pith:6KWYDGXV submitted 2025-05-28 eess.SP cs.SYeess.SY

Dilara Aktas , Ozgur B. Akan This is my paper
classification eess.SPcs.SYeess.SY
keywords molecularcommunicationFlexure-FETreceivercompetitivebindingbiologicalinterferenceweightshiftkeyingreceptoroccupancysignal-to-noiseratiosymbolerrorprobability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a Flexure-FET molecular communication receiver--a suspended-gate transistor whose current changes when captured molecules alter its stiffness--can be made more reliable in crowded environments by modeling target and interfering molecules as competitors for the same receptor sites. It integrates a competitive binding equilibrium solver into the receiver model, so receptor occupancy depends on the dissociation constants and concentrations of every ligand species at once. The authors argue that this gives a more realistic account of biological interference and creates a tuning handle: receptor density, ligand concentrations, and binding and unbinding rates change the receiver's sensitivity and error rate in predictable directions. A sympathetic reader would care because real molecular communication inside the body will always involve multiple molecular species, and this paper converts that unavoidable crowding from an unmodeled disturbance into a quantifiable, adjustable effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the competitive binding equilibrium. For each ligand species $j$ with dissociation constant $K_j$ (lower means stronger binding), equilibrium requires $K_j = [P]([L_j]_0 - [P L_j])/[P L_j]$ together with the receptor balance $[P]_0 = [P] + \sum_j [P L_j]$; the paper uses an iterative quadratic solver so no initial-value guess is needed. From this equilibrium it computes the bound-state probability $p_B = (\sum_j [L_j]_0/K_j)/(1 + \sum_j [L_j]_0/K_j)$, which sets the binomial variance of receptor occupancy and hence the binding-noise spectrum, and the mean bound densities for target and interferer species that drive the Flexure-FET's stiffness change, gate displacement, surface potential, and drain-current sensitivity. This mechanism converts molecular competition into a quantitative, tunable effect on SNR and SEP.

What would settle it

Simulate the same competitive-binding Flexure-FET receiver but estimate and subtract the interferer's mean current contribution $\mu_{II,m}$ per symbol before detection, leaving only intrinsic noise in the variance; if symbol error probability no longer rises with interferer concentration or binding rate, the paper's conclusion that interference is best modeled as noise would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that competitive binding--not isolated, independent ligand-receptor events--should govern how a molecular receiver models interference. The paper derives the mean number of bound target and interferer molecules from the competitive equilibrium, maps those densities through the Flexure-FET's stiffness change, gate displacement, surface potential shift, and drain current, and then evaluates signal-to-noise ratio and symbol error probability under two treatments: one that counts the interferer's mean current as signal and one that counts it as added noise variance. It finds that the noise-inclusive treatment worsens as interferer concentration and binding rate rise, that a higher interferer dissociation constant improves error probability, and that the gap grows when multiple interferer species are present. The stated conclusion is that accounting for receptor competition improves the receiver's ability to operate in real-world molecular communication systems and enables fine-tuning of the receiver response.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on treating the interferer's steady output-current contribution as extra random noise rather than as a deterministic, symbol-dependent signal that the receiver could estimate and subtract; if that modeling choice is wrong, the predicted SNR and SEP penalties change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If competitive binding is the right description, receiver models that treat target and interferer binding independently will misestimate receptor occupancy, and therefore misestimate SNR and symbol error probability, in crowded environments.
  • Raising the interferer dissociation constant (weaker binding) lowers the error probability under the noise-inclusive treatment, so engineering receptors that bind interferers weakly is a concrete way to reduce interference.
  • Increasing the number of surface receptors improves the signal-to-noise ratio that ignores interference but leaves the interference-inclusive SNR nearly flat, so receptor density alone cannot overcome molecular crowding.
  • The penalty from treating interferers as noise grows when several interferer species are present, which is the regime expected in biological fluids.
  • Weight Shift Keying (encoding bits in different molecule masses) is the modulation used in the analysis, and the model quantifies how its symbol error probability degrades as the number of symbols grows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is to estimate and subtract the interferer's mean current contribution $\mu_{II,m}$ before detection instead of folding $\mu_{II,m}^2$ into the noise variance; if symbol error probability then stops increasing with interferer concentration, the case for treating interference as noise would be weakened.
  • The same equilibrium solver could be applied to odor-based molecular communication, where many odorants with different affinities compete for olfactory receptors; the paper gestures at this but gives no quantitative example.
  • Because the model assumes a reaction-limited regime with constant ligand concentration during each symbol, applying it to diffusion-limited microfluidic channels would require coupling the binding equilibrium to a time-varying concentration field, which is outside the paper's scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' prior Flexure-FET molecular communication receiver by incorporating a competitive binding model for multiple ligand species. The receptor occupancy is computed via the iterative equilibrium solver of [23]; binding noise and flicker noise are propagated through the transduction model to obtain output current statistics; and WSK symbol error probability is evaluated under two SNR/SEP definitions (SNR1/SNR2, SEP1/SEP2). The central claim is that accounting for inter-species competition at the receptor level significantly improves reliability and robustness in interference-rich environments.

Significance. The direction is relevant to the MC community: adding competitive binding to a practical receiver model is a useful step toward analyzing biological interference, and the paper builds on established prior work [17], [23] with a clearly presented algorithm and reproducible parameter sets. The concrete iterative solver, the explicit noise PSD derivation, and the detailed parameter table are strengths for reproducibility. However, the numerical evidence is currently undermined by the chosen performance metrics and the absence of a non-competitive baseline, so the claimed significance is not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B, Eq. (31) and Section IV-C] The SNR2/SEP2 definitions treat the interferer's mean output current µ_II,m as an additional noise variance by writing the effective variance as σ^2_Im + µ^2_II,m. This is problematic for two reasons. First, µ_II,m is a deterministic, symbol-dependent bias, not a zero-mean noise, and a receiver with knowledge of interferer concentration and dissociation constant can estimate and remove it or incorporate it into the ML thresholds of Eq. (32). Second, the stochastic fluctuations of interferer binding are already contained in σ^2_Im through Var(NB) in Eq. (11) and the PSD of Eq. (17), since p_B includes all ligand species. Adding µ^2_II,m therefore double-counts the interferer effect and inflates the apparent degradation; the flatness of SEP2 in Fig. 10 and the SNR2 decline in Fig. 7 are partly artifacts of this metric. The statement in the Conclusion that the framework enables robust detection is consequently not established by the presented results.
  2. [Section IV and Section V] The performance analysis does not compare the competitive-binding receiver with a baseline that ignores competition (e.g., independent binding of target and interferer to separate receptor populations, or the prior model of [22]). The only comparisons shown are between SNR1 and SNR2 and between SEP1 and SEP2, i.e., between two different definitions of the metric for the same physical model. The Conclusion claims that accounting for the competition significantly enhances the receiver's ability, but Figs. 7–10 contain no run in which competitive binding is absent. Without such a baseline, the observed trends can be attributed to the metric choices rather than to the competitive-binding mechanism.
  3. [Table I and Eqs. (3)–(11)] The equilibrium equations and the binding probability p_B in Eq. (10) require [P]0, [Lj]0, and K_j to have mutually compatible units, yet Table I lists the surface receptor concentration [P]0 in m^−2 while ligand concentrations are given in m^−3 in the equations and figures. The competitive binding framework of [23] is formulated for volumetric concentrations, and the paper supplies no reaction volume or surface-to-volume conversion factor. Consequently, the numerical values of p_B, the bound densities µNs,m in Eqs. (18)–(20), and all downstream SNR/SEP results are not uniquely defined and cannot be reproduced from the stated parameters. In addition, the assumption that interferer molecules have the same molecular weight as the target molecules (Section IV) is not justified, although the transduction model explicitly depends on molecular weight via Eq. (22).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B, paragraphs after Fig. 7] The text describes Fig. 7(d) as showing the binding rate k2 and Fig. 7(e) as showing the unbinding rate k−2, but later in the same section the assignment is reversed; the axis labels in Fig. 7(d) and 7(e) indicate k−2 and k+2, respectively, so the discussion should be made consistent with the figure.
  2. [References [24] and [31]] Reference [31] is identical to [24] (same title, journal, volume, pages, and year); one of the two should be removed or replaced.
  3. [Index Terms] The term "competetive" in the Index Terms should be spelled "competitive".
  4. [Section III-B, Eq. (14)] The denominator in Eq. (14) writes Σ_n [Lj]0/K_n, which is ambiguous; it should be the sum over all species j of [Lj]0/K_j.
  5. [Section IV-C] In the definition of SEP2, the effective variance is written as σ^2_Im = σ^2_Im + µ^2_II,m, reusing the same symbol on both sides; a distinct symbol (e.g., σ̃^2_Im) is needed for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

SNR2/SEP2 metrics define interferer mean current as noise variance, so the 'interference degrades performance' result is partly built into the metric; competitive binding model itself is externally sourced, so circularity is partial.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-B, Eq. (31); Section IV-C SEP2 definitions]
    "SNR2,m = µ2 IT ,m σ2 Im + µ2 II ,m ... Incorporating interferer molecules into the noise model (i.e., SNR 2) allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the system’s sensitivity to noise and its ability to discriminate signals amidst biological interference."

    The 'noise due to interferers' is defined as the square of the mean interferer current µ_II^2, treating a deterministic, symbol-dependent bias as a zero-mean Gaussian variance. The stochastic fluctuations of interferer binding are already contained in σ_I^2 through Var(NB) in Eq. (11), since pB includes all ligand species. Hence the comparison SNR1 vs SNR2 and the associated claim that interferers-as-noise significantly affect performance is introduced by the metric definition rather than derived from the competitive binding model. The conclusion that accounting for interference is crucial is thus partly a tautology of the SNR2/SEP2 construction, although the underlying receptor-occupancy calculations use the external competitive-binding solver of [23] and retain independent content.

full rationale

The receiver and noise models are taken from the authors' prior published work ([17], [21], [22]) and the competitive binding equilibrium formalism is imported from external source [23]; these are not circular because they are established independently and stated explicitly. The main circularity concern is the SNR2/SEP2 metric definitions in Section IV, which encode 'interferers as noise' by adding the squared mean interferer current to the variance; the paper then presents the resulting degradation as evidence for the importance of interference modeling. This is a self-definitional element, not a fitted prediction or a self-citation chain. The central claim that competitive binding enables tuning of receiver response still has independent content through the equilibrium calculations and parametric sweeps, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are actual numerical choices or unspecified conversion constants. The main axioms are the equilibrium and Gaussian approximations inherited from prior work.

free parameters (2)
  • Molecular density (rho) for volume conversion = not specified
    Eq. (22) maps molecular weight to molecular volume, but the density used is not given. This conversion affects all sensitivity and SNR results.
  • Interferer-to-target molecular weight ratio = 1
    Section IV states interferers have the same molecular weight as targets, which makes interferers mechanically indistinguishable and affects the sensitivity calculation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reaction-limited regime with steady-state equilibrium
    Section III-A states ligand-receptor interactions dominate over diffusion and ligand concentration is constant per symbol, allowing equilibrium analysis. If diffusion limits or concentration varies, the occupancy model fails.
  • standard math Unique equilibrium via deficiency zero theorem
    Section III-A1 cites [23] to claim a unique equilibrium for the reversible binding network. This is a standard result for zero-deficiency networks.
  • domain assumption Total ligand concentration approximates free concentration
    Eq. (10) uses [Lj]0 in the occupancy formula, valid only when bound ligand is negligible. This is not justified for MC symbol periods.
  • domain assumption Gaussian approximation of total noise
    Section III-C assumes NR > 1000 so binding noise plus flicker noise is Gaussian, enabling the erfc-based SEP formula.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flexure-FET-Based Receiver with Competitive Binding for Interference Mitigation in Molecular Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KWYDGXV

@misc{pith2026250522849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flexure-FET-Based Receiver with Competitive Binding for Interference Mitigation in Molecular Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KWYDGXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22849}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular communication (MC), a biologically inspired technology, enables applications in nanonetworks and the Internet of Everything (IoE), with great potential for intra-body systems such as drug delivery, health monitoring, and disease detection. This paper extends our prior work on the Flexure-FET MC receiver by integrating a competitive binding model to enhance performance in high-interference environments, where multiple molecular species coexist in the reception space. Previous studies have largely focused on ligand concentration estimation and detection, without fully addressing the effects of inter-species competition for receptor binding. Our proposed framework captures this competition, offering a more biologically accurate model for multitarget environments. By incorporating competition dynamics, the model improves understanding of MC behavior under interference. This approach enables fine-tuning of receptor responses by adjusting ligand concentrations and receptor affinities, thereby optimizing the performance of the Flexure-FET MC receiver. Comprehensive analysis shows that accounting for competitive binding is crucial for improving reliability and accuracy in complex MC systems. Factors such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), symbol error probability (SEP), interferer concentration, and receptor dynamics are shown to significantly affect performance. The proposed framework highlights the need to manage these factors effectively. Results demonstrate that modeling interference through competitive binding offers a realistic system perspective and allows tuning of receiver response, enabling robust detection in environments with multiple coexisting species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Flexure-FET-based MC receiver, with W denoting the width, L the length, H the microbeam’s thickness, yd the dielectric thickness, and y0 the air gap. modeling the competition between different molecular species for receptor binding sites, which can significantly impact the accuracy of estimations in interference-rich environments. In a similar vein, in [25], detection methods for MC systems with ligand receptors… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spring-mass system representation of the Flexure-FET: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Generalized signal flow diagram of a MC-Rx [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The equivalent circuit of Flexure-FET MC-Rx. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized Sensitivity (S) as a function of interferer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Individual contributions of noise sources to the MC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SNR as a function of (a) interferer molecule concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D plot of SNR2 vs. [L2]0 and k + 2 on log scale, showing the effect of interferer concentration and binding rate on SNR. Not, but the rate of decline is less severe, reflecting the fact that the noise contribution from interferer molecules remains relatively constant …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SNR as a function of (a) surface receptor concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SEP as a function of (a) interferer molecule concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Solving the competitive binding equilibria between many ligands: application to high-throughput screening and affinity optimization,

    V . Blay, I. Otero-Muras, and D. A. Annis, “Solving the competitive binding equilibria between many ligands: application to high-throughput screening and affinity optimization,” Analytical Chemistry , vol. 92, no. 18, pp. 12 630–12 638, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [17]

    On the physical design of molecular communication receiver based on nanoscale biosensors,

    M. Kuscu and O. B. Akan, “On the physical design of molecular communication receiver based on nanoscale biosensors,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 2228–2243, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [22]

    Weight shift keying (WSK) with practical mechanical receivers for molecular communications in internet of ev- erything,

    D. Aktas and O. B. Akan, “Weight shift keying (WSK) with practical mechanical receivers for molecular communications in internet of ev- erything,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 3285–3294, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [1]

    The internet of bio-nano things,

    I. Akyildiz, M. Pierobon, S. Balasubramaniam, and Y . Koucheryavy, “The internet of bio-nano things,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 32–40, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [2]

    Nakano, A

    T. Nakano, A. W. Eckford, and T. Haraguchi, Molecular communication. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  6. [3]

    Molecu- lar communication and networking: Opportunities and challenges,

    T. Nakano, M. J. Moore, F. Wei, A. V . Vasilakos, and J. Shuai, “Molecu- lar communication and networking: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 135–148, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [4]

    Fundamentals of molecular information and communication science,

    O. B. Akan, H. Ramezani, T. Khan, N. A. Abbasi, and M. Kuscu, “Fundamentals of molecular information and communication science,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 306–318, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [5]

    Internet of everything (ioe)-from molecules to the universe,

    O. B. Akan, E. Dinc, M. Kuscu, O. Cetinkaya, and B. A. Bilgin, “Internet of everything (ioe)-from molecules to the universe,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 122–128, 2023. 13

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [6]

    Al-Turjman, Internet of nano-things and wireless body area networks (WBAN)

    F. Al-Turjman, Internet of nano-things and wireless body area networks (WBAN). CRC Press, 2019

    2019

  2. [7]

    Applications of molecular communications to medicine: A survey,

    L. Felicetti, M. Femminella, G. Reali, and P. Li `o, “Applications of molecular communications to medicine: A survey,” Nano Communica- tion Networks , vol. 7, pp. 27–45, 2016

    2016

  3. [8]

    The internet of molecular things based on fret,

    M. Kuscu and O. B. Akan, “The internet of molecular things based on fret,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 4–17, 2015

    2015

  4. [9]

    On mixing reser- voir targeted drug delivery modeling-based internet of bio-nanothings,

    A. El-Fatyany, H. Wang, A. El-atty, and M. Saied, “On mixing reser- voir targeted drug delivery modeling-based internet of bio-nanothings,” Wireless Networks, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 3701–3713, 2020

    2020

  5. [10]

    Biologically inspired bio-cyber interface architecture and model for internet of bio-nanothings applications,

    U. A. Chude-Okonkwo, R. Malekian, and B. T. Maharaj, “Biologically inspired bio-cyber interface architecture and model for internet of bio-nanothings applications,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 3444–3455, 2016

    2016

  6. [11]

    Microbiome-gut- brain axis as a biomolecular communication network for the internet of bio-nanothings,

    I. F. Akyildiz, J. Chen, M. Ghovanloo, U. Guler, T. Ozkaya-Ahmadov, M. Pierobon, A. F. Sarioglu, and B. D. Unluturk, “Microbiome-gut- brain axis as a biomolecular communication network for the internet of bio-nanothings,” IEEE access , vol. 7, pp. 136 161–136 175, 2019

    2019

  7. [12]

    Crispr-enabled graphene- based bio-cyber interface model for in vivo monitoring of non-invasive therapeutic processes,

    U. A. Chude-Okonkwo and A. V . Vasilakos, “Crispr-enabled graphene- based bio-cyber interface model for in vivo monitoring of non-invasive therapeutic processes,” IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 300–309, 2023

    2023

  8. [13]

    Hybrid deep learning techniques for securing bioluminescent interfaces in internet of bio nano things,

    T. Bakhshi and S. Zafar, “Hybrid deep learning techniques for securing bioluminescent interfaces in internet of bio nano things,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 21, p. 8972, 2023

    2023

  9. [14]

    Molecular communication among biological nanomachines: A layered architecture and research issues,

    T. Nakano, T. Suda, Y . Okaie et al. , “Molecular communication among biological nanomachines: A layered architecture and research issues,” IEEE Trans. NanoBiosci. , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 169–197, 2014

    2014

  10. [15]

    Genetically engi- neered bacteria-based biotransceivers for molecular communication,

    B. D. Unluturk, A. O. Bicen, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Genetically engi- neered bacteria-based biotransceivers for molecular communication,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1271–1281, 2015

    2015

  11. [16]

    Transmitter and receiver architectures for molecular communications: A survey on physical design with modulation, coding, and detection techniques,

    M. Kuscu, E. Dinc, B. A. Bilgin, H. Ramezani, and O. B. Akan, “Transmitter and receiver architectures for molecular communications: A survey on physical design with modulation, coding, and detection techniques,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 1302–1341, 2019

    2019

  12. [18]

    Real-time signal processing via chemical reactions for a microfluidic molecular commu- nication system,

    V . Walter, D. Bi, A. Salehi-Reyhani, and Y . Deng, “Real-time signal processing via chemical reactions for a microfluidic molecular commu- nication system,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 7188, 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Frequency-domain model of microflu- idic molecular communication channels with graphene biofet-based receivers,

    A. Abdali and M. Kuscu, “Frequency-domain model of microflu- idic molecular communication channels with graphene biofet-based receivers,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , 2024

    2024

  14. [20]

    Modeling and analysis of SiNW FET-based molecular communication receiver,

    M. Kuscu and O. B. Akan, “Modeling and analysis of SiNW FET-based molecular communication receiver,” IEEE Transactions on Communica- tions, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3708–3721, 2016

    2016

  15. [21]

    A mechanical transduction-based molecular communication receiver for internet of nano things (IoNT),

    D. Aktas and O. B. Akan, “A mechanical transduction-based molecular communication receiver for internet of nano things (IoNT),” in Proceed- ings of the Eight Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication , 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  16. [25]

    Detection in molecular communications with ligand receptors under molecular interference,

    M. Kuscu and O. B. Akan, “Detection in molecular communications with ligand receptors under molecular interference,” Digital Signal Processing, vol. 124, p. 103186, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    Interference modeling and capacity analysis for microfluidic molecular communication channels,

    A. O. Bicen and I. F. Akyildiz, “Interference modeling and capacity analysis for microfluidic molecular communication channels,” IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 570–579, 2015

    2015

  18. [27]

    Odor- based molecular communications: State-of-the-art, vision, challenges, and frontier directions,

    D. Aktas, B. E. Ortlek, M. Civas, E. Baradari, A. B. Kilic, F. E. Bilgen, A. S. Okcu, M. Whitfield, O. Cetinkaya, and O. B. Akan, “Odor- based molecular communications: State-of-the-art, vision, challenges, and frontier directions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Flexure-FET biosensor to break the fundamental sensitivity limits of nanobiosensors using nonlinear electromechanical coupling,

    A. Jain, P. R. Nair, and M. A. Alam, “Flexure-FET biosensor to break the fundamental sensitivity limits of nanobiosensors using nonlinear electromechanical coupling,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 109, no. 24, pp. 9304–9308, 2012

    2012

  20. [29]

    Biologi- cal shot-noise and quantum-limited signal-to-noise ratio in affinity-based biosensors,

    A. Hassibi, S. Zahedi, R. Navid, R. W. Dutton, and T. H. Lee, “Biologi- cal shot-noise and quantum-limited signal-to-noise ratio in affinity-based biosensors,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 97, no. 8, 2005

    2005

  21. [30]

    Principles of affinity-based biosensors,

    K. R. Rogers, “Principles of affinity-based biosensors,” Molecular Biotechnology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 109–129, 2000

    2000

  22. [31]

    Channel sensing in molecular commu- nications with single type of ligand receptors,

    M. Kuscu and O. B. Akan, “Channel sensing in molecular commu- nications with single type of ligand receptors,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6868–6884, 2019

    2019

  23. [32]

    Temperature dependence of 1/f noise mechanisms in silicon nanowire biochemical field effect transistors,

    N. K. Rajan, D. A. Routenberg et al. , “Temperature dependence of 1/f noise mechanisms in silicon nanowire biochemical field effect transistors,” Appl. Phys. Lett. , vol. 97, no. 24, p. 243501, 2010

    2010

  24. [33]

    Amplitude distribution of 1/f noise,

    F. N. Hooge and A. M. H. Hoppenbrouwers, “Amplitude distribution of 1/f noise,” Physica, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 331–339, 1969. Dilara Aktas (Student Member, IEEE) received her BS degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Istanbul Technical University in June 2019. ...

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.