Effective bioprinting resolution in tissue model fabrication
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
Recent advancements in bioprinting techniques have enabled convenient fabrication of micro-tissues in organ-on-a-chip platforms. In a sense, the success of bioprinted micro-tissues depends on how close their architectures are to the anatomical features of their native counterparts. The bioprinting resolution largely relates to the technical specifications of the bioprinter platforms and the physicochemical properties of the bioinks. In this article, we compare inkjet, extrusion, and light-assisted bioprinting technologies for fabrication of micro-tissues towards construction of biomimetic organ-on-a-chip platforms. Our theoretical analyses reveal that for a given printhead diameter, surface contact angle dominates inkjet bioprinting resolution, while nozzle moving speed and the nonlinearity of viscosity for bioinks regulate extrusion bioprinting resolution. The resolution of light-assisted bioprinting is strongly affected by the photocrosslinking behavior and light characteristics. Our tutorial guideline for optimizing bioprinting resolution would potentially help model the complex microenvironment of biological tissues in organ-on-a-chip platforms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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