A brief review of extrusion‐based tissue scaffold bio‐printing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extrusion-based bio-printing has great potential as a technique for manipulating biomaterials and living cells to create three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds for damaged tissue repair and function restoration. Over the last two decades, advances in both engineering techniques and life sciences have evolved extrusion-based bio-printing from a simple technique to one able to create diverse tissue scaffolds from a wide range of biomaterials and cell types. However, the complexities associated with synthesis of materials for bio-printing and manipulation of multiple materials and cells in bio-printing pose many challenges for scaffold fabrication. This paper presents an overview of extrusion-based bio-printing for scaffold fabrication, focusing on the prior-printing considerations (such as scaffold design and materials/cell synthesis), working principles, comparison to other techniques, and to-date achievements. This paper also briefly reviews the recent development of strategies with regard to hydrogel synthesis, multi-materials/cells manipulation, and process-induced cell damage in extrusion-based bio-printing. The key issue and challenges for extrusion-based bio-printing are also identified and discussed along with recommendations for future, aimed at developing novel biomaterials and bio-printing systems, creating patterned vascular networks within scaffolds, and preserving the cell viability and functions in scaffold bio-printing. The address of these challenges will significantly enhance the capability of extrusion-based bio-printing.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it