The rheology of direct and suspended extrusion bioprinting
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
Bioprinting is a tool increasingly used in tissue engineering laboratories around the world. As an extension to classic tissue engineering, it enables high levels of control over the spatial deposition of cells, materials, and other factors. It is a field with huge promise for the production of implantable tissues and even organs, but the availability of functional bioinks is a barrier to success. Extrusion bioprinting is the most commonly used technique, where high-viscosity solutions of materials and cells are required to ensure good shape fidelity of the printed tissue construct. This is contradictory to hydrogels used in tissue engineering, which are generally of low viscosity prior to cross-linking to ensure cell viability, making them not directly translatable to bioprinting. This review provides an overview of the important rheological parameters for bioinks and methods to assess printability, as well as the effect of bioink rheology on cell viability. Developments over the last five years in bioink formulations and the use of suspended printing to overcome rheological limitations are then discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it