Additive Manufacturing of Biomedical Constructs with Biomimetic Structural Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), sometimes called three-dimensional (3D) printing, has attracted a lot of research interest and is presenting unprecedented opportunities in biomedical fields, because this technology enables the fabrication of biomedical constructs with great freedom and in high precision. An important strategy in AM of biomedical constructs is to mimic the structural organizations of natural biological organisms. This can be done by directly depositing cells and biomaterials, depositing biomaterial structures before seeding cells, or fabricating molds before casting biomaterials and cells. This review organizes the research advances of AM-based biomimetic biomedical constructs into three major directions: 3D constructs that mimic tubular and branched networks of vasculatures; 3D constructs that contains gradient interfaces between different tissues; and 3D constructs that have different cells positioned to create multicellular systems. Other recent advances are also highlighted, regarding the applications of AM for organs-on-chips, AM-based micro/nanostructures, and functional nanomaterials. Under this theme, multiple aspects of AM including imaging/characterization, material selection, design, and printing techniques are discussed. The outlook at the end of this review points out several possible research directions for the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".