MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940504419 · doi:10.1002/smll.201805530

3D Bioprinting in Skeletal Muscle Tissue Engineering

2019· review· en· W2940504419 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Ostrovidov, Sahar Salehi, Marco Costantini, Kasinan Suthiwanich, Majid Ebrahimi, Ramin Banan Sadeghian, Toshinori Fujie, Xuetao Shi, Stefano Cannata, Cesare Gargioli, Ali Tamayol, Mehmet R. Dokmeci, Gorka Orive, Wojciech Święszkowski, Ali Khademhosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNarodowe Centrum Badań i RozwojuSTART, Global Change System for Analysis, Research, and Training
KeywordsTissue engineeringSkeletal muscleMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMuscle tissueNanotechnologyAnatomyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle tissue engineering (SMTE) aims at repairing defective skeletal muscles. Until now, numerous developments are made in SMTE; however, it is still challenging to recapitulate the complexity of muscles with current methods of fabrication. Here, after a brief description of the anatomy of skeletal muscle and a short state-of-the-art on developments made in SMTE with "conventional methods," the use of 3D bioprinting as a new tool for SMTE is in focus. The current bioprinting methods are discussed, and an overview of the bioink formulations and properties used in 3D bioprinting is provided. Finally, different advances made in SMTE by 3D bioprinting are highlighted, and future needs and a short perspective are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations290
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207