Influence of Flow Behavior of Alginate–Cell Suspensions on Cell Viability and Proliferation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue scaffolds with living cells fabricated by three-dimensional bioprinting/plotting techniques are becoming more prevalent in tissue repair and regeneration. In the bioprinting process, cells are subject to process-induced forces (such as shear force) that can result in cell damage and loss of cell function. The flow behavior of the biomaterial solutions that encapsulate living cells in this process plays an important role. This study used a rheometer to examine the flow behavior of alginate solution and alginate-Schwann cell (RSC96), alginate-fibroblast cell (NIH-3T3), and alginate-skeletal muscle cell (L8) suspensions during shearing with respect to effects on cell viability and proliferation. The flow behavior of all the alginate-cell suspensions varied with alginate concentration and cell density and had a significant influence on the viability and proliferation of the cells once sheared as well as on the recovery of the sheared cells. These findings provide a mean to preserve cell viability and/or retain cell proliferation function in the bioprinting process by regulating the flow behavior of cell-biomaterial suspensions and process parameters.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".