Structural and Performance Comparison Between Su-8 Microfabricated and 3D-Printed Microneedle Electrodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study is aimed to compare the structure and performance of 3D-printed and microfabricated microneedle arrays (MNAs). Materials & methods: MNAs were produced using either stereolithography printing or were micro-fabricated using SU-8 polymer. The structure of both MNA types were tested and compared through scanning electron microscopy. MNA performance was also evaluated through electrical impedence spectroscopy and nerve conduction velocity testing. Results & conclusion: The 3D-printed MNAs were shown to have higher gain than microfabricated MNAs at high frequencies. However, the selectivity of the microfabricated MNAs is more than 3D-printed MNAs. Scanning electron microscopy image comparison also showed significant differences between the output of the 3D-printed MNAs and the microfabricated MNAs. It was understood that the microfabricated MNAs’ geometries are closer to the primary design than the 3D-printed MNAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".