What's Standing in the Way of Non-Invasive Sensing?

In these sensors, light, ultrasound, and electromagnetic fields interact with tissues in complex ways. This can cause scattering, absorption, and subject-specific variability that can easily distort or bury weak physiological signals.^1,2

For example, optical wearables that monitor heart rate, oxygen levels, or glucose can be affected by skin color, blood flow changes, and movement.

To create effective non-invasive sensing systems, engineers must select appropriate wavelengths, develop detailed models of how light behaves in tissues, and apply algorithms that can still face challenges with different skin tones, ages, and health conditions.^1,2

Sensor Materials and Biocompatibility

The interface between sensor and body should balance mechanical flexibility, chemical stability, and skin safety, and this combination is difficult to achieve in real-world conditions.

Soft, stretchable substrates and conductive inks can conform to the body, but they may delaminate, absorb sweat, or degrade with repeated flexing and cleaning. These issues can affect both the quality of the signals and user comfort over time.^3,4

And, biocompatibility goes beyond simple irritation tests. Adhesives, encapsulants, and electrode materials must withstand fluctuations in humidity, temperature, and skin microbiomes without causing rashes or dermatitis in sensitive users.

Bioengineers also avoid materials that shed nanoparticles or leach plasticizers, as regulatory standards increasingly focus on long-term safety for devices that are continuously worn on the skin.^3,4

Motion Artifacts and Real-Life Noise

Many academic studies on non-invasive sensing are conducted in controlled settings with willing subjects who remain still. But real devices are used on moving bodies in everyday situations.

Motion introduces large artifacts in photoplethysmography, electrocardiography, and inertial sensing, and the amplitudes of these artifacts often exceed the physiological signals of interest, particularly during physical activities.^2,4

To reduce this motion noise, scientists can improve device design, using better materials that minimize movement between the sensor and the skin. Still, some noise remains, requiring advanced signal processing methods.

Techniques like adaptive filtering, sensor fusion, and machine learning (ML) can enhance accuracy, but they also increase computational load and power consumption.⁵

Power and Thermal Limits on a Small Scale

Non-invasive devices need to function for extended periods using small batteries or energy harvesters. This requirement limits the options for sensors, sampling rates, and onboard processing capabilities.

New device designs should be compact enough to integrate radios, microcontrollers, and sensors, all while maintaining a low average power consumption. This is essential in preventing frequent recharging, as this can frustrate users and disrupt long-term monitoring.^1,6,7

Thermal management also matters because dense electronics on the skin can create local heating that affects both comfort and measurement accuracy, especially for temperature-sensitive analytes. To address this issue, designers implement techniques such as duty cycling, low-power analog front ends, and offloading intensive computations to external devices or the cloud.

However, this approach can introduce new challenges related to latency and connectivity.^7,8

Calibration, Validation, and Clinical Reliability

Non-invasive measurements rarely have direct one-to-one correspondence with internal physiological states, so they rely on calibration models that remain stable over time and across populations. Sweat composition, interstitial fluid dynamics, or optical path changes can shift sensor responses.

This requires engineers to develop calibration schemes that are resilient to variations in hydration, environmental conditions, and differences in body composition.^1,2

Clinical validation represents an equally significant barrier, since regulators and clinicians expect rigorous evidence that non-invasive readings track accepted gold standards in realistic situations.

Research protocols must cover diverse demographics, various comorbidities, and different use cases. Yet, many early studies still focus on narrow cohorts, which restricts the applicability of their findings and maintains a high level of skepticism within the medical community.^9,10

Algorithms and Potential Bias

Modern non-invasive sensing leans heavily on algorithms that convert raw signals into features, and then into clinically meaningful metrics such as arrhythmia detection or fatigue estimation.

ML models can identify complex patterns between noisy data and underlying health states. However, they often lack enough data from certain age groups, skin tones, or medical conditions, leading to biased results.^11,12

Engineers must therefore design pipelines that remain transparent, robust, and interpretable for regulatory scrutiny while still delivering competitive accuracy.

This tension grows as devices move toward adaptive or continuously learning models, because regulators want predictable behavior and auditability, whereas data scientists prefer flexible models that update with new data streams.¹²

Privacy, Security, and Data Governance

Non-invasive sensors gather detailed data about behavior and health, including mood, work habits, and location, which raises substantial privacy concerns. Recent academic reports highlight security issues, such as weak encryption, inadequate authentication, and poor access control. These problems are particularly prevalent in low-cost devices that ship with default credentials or unclear data privacy policies.^13,14

It's important to consider security as a primary part of the design process rather than adding it later. This involves using threat modeling, secure updates, and designs that protect user privacy from the beginning.

The absence of unified international standards for handling biometric data makes this task more challenging, as organizations must deal with various regulations from health regulators, data protection authorities, and consumer protection bodies.^13,14

Regulation and Compliance

Non-invasive sensing technologies often sit at the boundary between wellness gadgets and regulated medical devices. This gray zone creates uncertainty for engineering roadmaps.

In the United States, the FDA classifies devices based on their intended use, risk level, and claims made about diagnosis or treatment. Mistakes in this process can lead to stricter premarket review requirements. ⁹

Wearable biosensors used for clinical decision-making must meet quality regulations, post-market surveillance rules, and increasing cybersecurity standards, all of which influence architecture and documentation choices. Engineers working for global markets face different expectations from regulators worldwide.

This situation encourages them to create modular designs that can adapt to various features and claims in different regions.⁹

User Experience: Comfort and Trust

Image Credit: martenaba/Shutterstock.com

User acceptance of wearable devices relies on more than just accurate measurements. Factors like comfort, aesthetics, and perceived intrusiveness can affect long-term use. Studies show that poorly designed wearables can interfere with work, cause discomfort, or distract users, making it harder to stick to monitoring programs in workplaces and healthcare settings.¹⁵

Building trust also involves clearly communicating what the devices can and cannot do. If devices make false alarms or miss important events, users may lose confidence.

It’s important for teams creating non-invasive sensing tools to work closely with clinicians, psychologists, and designers. This teamwork ensures that the feedback provided is useful without being overwhelming, and that the features align with realistic user needs rather than speculative use cases.^10,13

Integration into Care and Workflows

Non-invasive sensing can only deliver value when data is integrated into decision-making processes in healthcare or occupational safety, but this integration is still underdeveloped. Clinicians need to interpret streams of sensor data within existing electronic health records, and many systems struggle with interoperability, alert fatigue, and unclear reimbursement structures for remote monitoring services.^10,13

Industrial settings face related issues, since ergonomic and safety wearables need to work with existing safety management systems and data platforms that track incidents and training.

This leads to the design of non-invasive sensing systems that act not just as standalone devices, but as parts of larger systems that include cloud services, data analysis, and human workflows.¹⁵

Saving this article for later? Grab a PDF here.

What Lies Ahead for Non-Invasive Sensing?

The question of what is standing in the way of non-invasive sensing does not have a straightforward answer. The obstacles create an interconnected network of physical limits, design trade-offs, regulatory expectations, and human factors.

Engineers push the field forward by treating these challenges as intertwined constraints. They focus on solutions that respect the complexity of human bodies, data, and healthcare systems, rather than merely chasing isolated performance metrics.

References and Further Reading

1. Vo, D., & Trinh, K. T. (2024). Advances in Wearable Biosensors for Healthcare: Current Trends, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Biosensors, 14(11), 560. DOI:10.3390/bios14110560. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6374/14/11/560
2. Mao, P. et al. (2023). A Review of Skin-Wearable Sensors for Non-Invasive Health Monitoring Applications. Sensors, 23(7), 3673. DOI:10.3390/s23073673. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/7/3673
3. Morillo, C. A. et al. (2025). Exploring Wearable Devices for Enhanced Ergonomic Solutions: A Pharmaceutical Case Study. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 116, 25-30 DOI:10.3303/CET25116005. https://www.cetjournal.it/cet/25/116/005.pdf
4. Donisi, L. et al. (2022). Wearable Sensors and Artificial Intelligence for Physical Ergonomics: A Systematic Review of Literature. Diagnostics, 12(12), 3048. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics12123048. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/12/12/3048
5. Chen, Z. et al. (2025). Selectively damping materials for next-generation motion-artifact-free skin-interfaced soft bioelectronics. Materials Horizons, 12(19), 7894. DOI:10.1039/d5mh00700c. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/mh/d5mh00700c
6. Chen, S. et al. (2025). An Energy-Aware, Self-Adaptive, Battery-Free Smart Wristband for Long-Term Health Monitoring. IEEE Access. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3593936. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11104221
7. Mohammadi, R., & Shirmohammadi, Z. (2023). DRDC: Deep reinforcement learning based duty cycle for energy harvesting body sensor node. Energy Reports, 9, 1707-1719. DOI:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722027391
8. Zhu, E. (2024). Optimization of low power consumption in wearable health monitoring devices and algorithm design. Applied and Computational Engineering 41(1), 269-274. DOI:10.54254/2755-2721/41/20230765. https://ace.ewapub.com/article/view/10307
9. Pawnikar, V., & Patel, M. (2025). Biosensors in wearable medical devices: Regulatory framework and compliance across US, EU, and Indian markets. Annales Pharmaceutiques FrançAises, 83(4), 637-648. DOI:10.1016/j.pharma.2025.02.007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003450925000380
10. Liu, J. et al. (2023). Wearable Health Devices and Personal Health Trackers: What You Need to Know. National Center for Health Research. https://www.center4research.org/wearable-medical-devices-risks-fitbit/
11. Reshad, A. I. et al. (2025). Deep Learning-Based Detection of Arrhythmia Using ECG Signals – A Comprehensive Review. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 21, 685. DOI:10.2147/VHRM.S508620. https://www.dovepress.com/deep-learning-based-detection-of-arrhythmia-using-ecg-signals--a-compr-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-VHRM
12. Abulibdeh, R. et al. (2025). The illusion of safety: A report to the FDA on AI healthcare product approvals. PLOS Digital Health, 4(6), e0000866. DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000866. https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000866
13. Zhang, B. et al. (2025). A survey on security and privacy issues in wearable health monitoring devices. Computers & Security, 155, 104453. DOI:10.1016/j.cose.2025.104453. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404825001427
14. Doherty, C. et al. (2025). Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: A living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers. NPJ Digital Medicine, 8, 363. DOI:10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01757-1
15. Naranjo, J. E. et al. (2025). Wearable Sensors in Industrial Ergonomics: Enhancing Safety and Productivity in Industry 4.0. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 25(5), 1526. DOI:10.3390/s25051526. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/5/1526

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.