MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000225496 · doi:10.1080/03639045.2019.1711389

Low-temperature solvent-based 3D printing of PLGA: a parametric printability study

2020· article· en· W3000225496 on OpenAlexaff
Emad Naseri, Haley Butler, Wyatt MacNevin, Marya Ahmed, Ali Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development and Industrial Pharmacy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPLGAGlycolic acidSolventMaterials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryNuclear chemistryPolymer chemistryNanotechnologyLactic acidOrganic chemistryNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a novel low-temperature 3 D printing technique is introduced and characterized through a parametric printability study to fabricate poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) constructs using methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) as a solvent. The effects of varying concentrations of PLGA in MEK solvent, lactic to glycolic ratio of PLGA, the molecular weight of PLGA, and the scaling of PLGA constructs on the printability are investigated. PLGA concentrations of higher than 80% w/v, lactic to glycolic ratio more than 75%, molecular weight more than 100 kDa, and printing through nozzles smaller than 0.96 mm internal diameter are recommended for 3 D printing of PLGA constructs with high shape fidelity. Ultimately, a vacuum drying solvent removal process is implemented, and Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy is used to confirm complete removal of the solvent from PLGA constructs. The results of this study can be used for the development of drug-eluting implants.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Development and Industrial PharmacySame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207