MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933900958 · doi:10.31438/trf.hh2016.83

INVESTIGATIONS OF BIOINK RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES FOR DROP ON DEMAND PIEZOELECTRIC CELL PRINTING

2016· article· en· W2933900958 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Li, Eric Cheng, Haoran Yu, Ali Ahmadi, Karen C. Cheung

Bibliographic record

Venue2016 Solid-State, Actuators, and Microsystems Workshop Technical Digest · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosityMaterials scienceFicollViscometerReflection (computer programming)Composite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the effects of increasing the viscosity of density matching bio-inks on the reliability of printing MCF-7 breast cancer cells using piezoelectric inkjet nozzles are investigated. The cell printing reliability was characterized by the frequency of occurrence of cell reflection in the nozzle: in cell reflection cells moved further away from the orifice after an ejection cycle. To decouple the effects of fluid density and viscosity on cell trajectory, three solutions were used: 1) phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) which has low viscosity and has lower density than cells; 2) low viscosity, density-matching sodium polytungstate (SPT) solution; and 3) high viscosity, density-matching Ficoll sucrose polymer solution. While cell reflection was observed for PBS and SPT solutions, it was not observed for high viscosity Ficoll solution. Propagation of pressure waves induces the transient motion of cells, and higher viscosity of solution causes increased viscous forces on the cells and prevents cell reflection.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2016 Solid-State, Actuators, and Microsystems Workshop Technical DigestSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207