MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4402968427 · doi:10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_211_24

3D printing in medical sciences – a promising future

2024· article· en· W4402968427 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sushil Kumar, Rasika Deshpande

Notice bibliographique

RevueMGM Journal of Medical Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAnatomy and Medical Technology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clés3D printingMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Inspired by Dr. PK Ghosh’s intriguing article on 3D printing, I decided to delve deeper into the technology and compose this editorial. Part 1 of the article appeared in the April-June issue of this journal,[1] and Part 2[2] is featured in the current issue. Once a concept confined to science fiction, organ printing has rapidly become a ground breaking reality, ushering in a new era in healthcare. Using 3D bioprinting technology to fabricate functional human organs layer by layer, the potential to save lives and revolutionize medical treatment is immense. The history of 3D bioprinting dates back to the early 1980s when American engineer Charles Hull developed the first 3D printer using an acrylic-based photopolymer. This new 3D printing technology, stereolithography, was later applied to creating 3D bio-prints using bioinks containing living cells. A primary objective of 3D bioprinting technology is to create in-vitro tissues or organs that can replace damaged tissues or organs in individuals. 3D bio-printed products include biomedical devices, tissues and organs, bioengineered prosthetics, and implants. This technology may also help in the development of new drugs and biosensors. The implications of organ printing are profound. They address critical challenges such as organ shortages, transplant rejections, and long waiting lists. Traditional organ transplantation, while life-saving, is fraught with limitations, including donor scarcity and the risk of rejection. Organ printing offers a viable solution, providing custom-made organs tailored to each patient’s unique physiology, thereby mitigating rejection risks and eliminating the need for donors. Moreover, organ printing has the potential to revolutionize drug discovery and testing. 3D bioprinting technology can create bioengineered tumor models in vitro, mimicking human tumor tissues. These models aid in anticancer drug screening and precision treatment regimens by replicating real tumor heterogeneity. 3D tumor organoids created by using bio-printed tumor cells collected from tumor patients would be useful for studying gene expression profiles, and such models can be used for therapy development and selecting effective molecules in cancer research. Another potential use of this technology may be in increasing the longevity of the human race by reprogramming aged cells and increasing the telomere length[3] and using such cells for bioprinting, followed by using the bioprinted structures for organ replacement. However, despite its transformative potential, organ printing still faces significant challenges. Replicating human organs’ intricate structures and functions remains a formidable obstacle. Additionally, the technology’s scalability and cost-effectiveness must be optimized to ensure widespread accessibility. Furthermore, ethical considerations surrounding organ printing cannot be overlooked. Questions regarding consent, equity in access, and the commodification of human tissues demand careful deliberation. As technology advances, ethical frameworks must evolve in tandem to safeguard the dignity and rights of individuals. There is considerable growth in the 3D printing market, and thousands of startup companies are connected with this technology. However, only a few are successful. The USA leads the pack, but Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Japan, and China have also made sizable contributions. Some of the startups in India are also developing 3D printing technology. In Bangalore(India), one of the technology companies has developed a bioprinter that can print human tissue.[4] Collaboration among scientists, clinicians, policymakers, and ethicists is essential to fully realizing the potential of organ printing. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and investing in research and development, we can overcome existing challenges and pave the way for a future where organ printing becomes a routine part of medical practice. As we stand on the brink of a healthcare revolution driven by the convergence of biotechnology and engineering, organ printing offers hope for needy patients. It promises a healthier, more equitable world. By embracing this transformative technology with caution, compassion, and foresight, we can unlock its vast potential to redefine the boundaries of modern medicine and enhance human well-being. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,967
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,850

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,315
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMGM Journal of Medical SciencesMême sujetAnatomy and Medical TechnologyTravaux en français237 207