MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080092833 · doi:10.1088/1758-5082/3/3/030201

The 2010 International Conference on Biofabrication (BF2010) special issue

2011· editorial· en· W2080092833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofabrication · 2011
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofabricationEngineering ethicsMedical physicsComputer scienceMedicineManagement scienceBiomedical engineeringEngineeringTissue engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BF2010, the 2010 International Conference on Biofabrication was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (4–6 October 2010). The objective of BF2010 was to provide a broad communication venue for multidisciplinary scientists, researchers and industrial participants to exchange and disseminate recent scientific discoveries, research, development and emerging applications in the field of biofabrication, to promote international collaboration, and to explore new directions in research on biofabrication. The conference's major topics included, but were not limited to, the following thrust areas: Bioprinting of cells, proteins, and biologics, including inkjet printing, bioplotting, biological laser printing and other novel bioprinting technologies; Biofabrication of biological models, tissue models, disease pathogeneses models, drug toxicological and discovery models, and cell/tissue-on-a-chip systems; Biofabrication of tissue scaffolds and tissue engineered substitutes for regenerative medicine; Integrated bio-micro (micro-bio) and bio-nano (nano-bio) fabrication, bio-additive manufacturing, and the state-of-the-art and future of biomaterials suitable for bioprinting and biofabrication; Design, model, and evaluation of the biofabrication process; computer-aided biofabrication; modeling on biofabricated structures, cell aggregates and tissue ingrowth; Design and fabrication of various drug delivery vehicles; Biofabrication industry, trends and future directions. BF2010 embraced over 130 attendees representing the following countries: Portugal, France, The Republic of Korea, China, the USA, the UK, Australia, Japan, Italy, Poland, Germany, Canada, The Netherlands, Greece, and Brazil. This was the largest gathering of the international biofabrication community. The BF2010 technical program consisted of three full-day 16 parallel sessions with six keynote presentations, 88 oral presentations and 26 poster presentations. The poster presentations were reviewed by selected judges from the BF2010 scientific committee along with participants of the conference. The top three posters were awarded at the closing ceremony. At the closing ceremony Professor Makoto Nakamura announced `BF2011 in Toyama' (www.lni.co.jp/biofabrication2011/). One milestone event of BF2010 was the launch of the International Society of Biofabrication (ISBF), a scientific and professional non-profit society, which promotes advances in biofabrication research, development, education, training, and medical and clinical applications. ISBF's core purpose is to foster scientific and technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. ISBF promotes interaction between the different disciplines of the field of biofabrication as well as between basic research and applied practice. An important objective of ISBF is cooperation with other scientific organizations and communities. This special issue is a selection of 15 papers from the BF2010 conference that are representative of the recent developments in the field of biofabrication. Several selected papers introduce various enabling techniques for the fabrication of three-dimensional (3D) tissue scaffolds. For example, in the paper `Development of a hybrid scaffold with synthetic biomaterials and hydrogel using solid freeform fabrication technology', Shim et al at POSTECH, Korea, report the development of fabricating a 3D hybrid scaffold that consists of synthetic biomaterials and a natural hydrogel using the multi-head deposition system (MHDS) based on additive manufacturing technology. Zhu et al from the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, describe the `Development of novel hybrid poly(l-lactide)/chitosan scaffolds using the rapid freeze prototyping technique'. In the reported work, 3D scaffolds are fabricated from a mixture of chitosan microspheres (CMs) and poly(l-lactide) by means of a rapid freeze prototyping (RFP) technique. Hamid et al at Drexel University, USA, present `Fabrication of three-dimensional scaffolds using precision extrusion deposition with an assisted cooling device'. They apply a precision extrusion deposition (PED) technique to fabricate micro-scaled scaffolds with high printing resolution, precision, and control for a special set of biopolymers. In `Laser sintering fabrication of three-dimensional tissue engineering scaffolds with a flow channel network' Niino et al at Tokyo University, Japan, introduce a process in which a biodegradable plastic powder is mixed with fine salt grains and processed by laser sintering additive manufacturing technology, to develop a scaffold with a fine flow channel network. Various cell printing/deposition techniques are also reported in this special issue. Work on `Three-dimensional inkjet biofabrication based on designed images' is reported by Arai et al from Toyama University, Japan. They introduce a custom-made inkjet printer, `Inkjet 3D bioprinter', which is based on inkjet technology for fabricating 3D structures composed of living cells and biomaterials with which semi-solid hydrogel structures can be constructed in liquid medium. Hamon et al from Tokyo University, Japan, report a new methodology for engineering thick liver tissues `Avidin–biotin-based approach to forming heterogenic cell clusters and cell sheets on a gas-permeable membrane'. They describe a new methodology for the formation of a functional thick hepatic tissue usable for cell sheet technology. A `Laser-guidance-based cell deposition microscope for heterotypic single-cell micropatterning' by Ma et al at Clemson University, USA, is reported, which is capable of producing high resolution micropatterns of different cell types on a substratum and allows for on-stage incubation for long-term cell culturing. Tejavibulya et al at Brown University, USA, report `Directed self-assembly of large scaffold-free multi-cellular honeycomb structures'. The authors use a direct self-assembly approach to create large multi-cellular honeycomb building blocks, whereby cell-to-cell adhesion drives the formation of a 3D structure. Work on `Bioprinting cell-laden matrigel for radioprotection study of liver by pro-drug conversion in dual-tissue microfluidic chip' is reported by Snyder et al from Drexel University, USA. The paper introduces a combined cell-printing and microfabrication technique to develop a microfluidic system to study drug conversion and radiation protection of living liver tissue analogs. In `Microengineering methods for cell-based microarrays and high-throughput drug-screening applications' Xu et al from Harvard University, USA, report the use of microengineering technology to produce 3D cell-based drug-screening assays. Work on `Biofabrication of chitosan–silver composite SERS substrates enabling quantification of adenine by spectroscopic shift' is reported by Luo et al from the University of Maryland, USA. They present a new biofabrication strategy using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) to fabricate substrates that enable the quantification through a newly discovered spectroscopic shift due to chitosan–analyte interactions. In `Design and fabrication of a novel porous implant with pre-set channels based on ceramic stereolithography for vascular implantation', Bian et al at Xi'an Jiaotong University, China, report a novel biomimetic design approach for blood vessel implants with pre-set channels to treat early femoral head necrosis. Khoda et al from the University at Buffalo, USA, introduce a novel continuous tool path planning methodology to design `A functionally gradient variational porosity architecture for hollowed scaffolds fabrication'. In `CAD/CAM-assisted breast reconstruction' Melchels et al from Queensland University of Technology, Australia, report on the development of a generic algorithm for the design and control of porosity patterns within a scaffold. We hope that the selected papers will be of interest to the reader, and can encourage and stimulate further research in the field of biofabrication. We also would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors and reviewers for their support, and thank IOP Publishing for publishing this special issue.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it