MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135426067 · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.016

Biofabrication and bioprinting using cellular aggregates, microtissues and organoids for the engineering of musculoskeletal tissues

2021· review· en· W3135426067 on OpenAlex
Ross Burdis, Daniel J. Kelly

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Biomaterialia · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersEuropean Research CouncilEuropean Regional Development FundScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsBiofabricationOrganoidTissue engineering3D bioprintingBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyCell biologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modest clinical impact of musculoskeletal tissue engineering (TE) can be attributed, at least in part, to a failure to recapitulate the structure, composition and functional properties of the target tissue. This has motivated increased interest in developmentally inspired TE strategies, which seek to recapitulate key events that occur during embryonic and post-natal development, as a means of generating truly biomimetic grafts to replace or regenerate damaged tissues and organs. Such TE strategies can be substantially enabled by emerging biofabrication and bioprinting strategies, and in particular the use of cellular aggregates, microtissues and organoids as 'building blocks' for the development of larger tissues and/or organ precursors. Here, the application of such biological building blocks for the engineering of musculoskeletal tissues, from vascularised bone to zonally organised articular cartilage, will be reviewed. The importance of first scaling-down to later scale-up will be discussed, as this is viewed as a key component of engineering functional grafts using cellular aggregates or microtissues. In the context of engineering anatomically accurate tissues of scale suitable for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications, novel bioprinting modalities and their application in controlling the process by which cellular aggregates or microtissues fuse and self-organise will be reviewed. Throughout the paper, we will highlight some of the key challenges facing this emerging field. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The field of bioprinting has grown substantially in recent years, but despite the hype and excitement it has generated, there are relatively few examples of bioprinting strategies producing implants with superior regenerative potential to that achievable with more traditional tissue engineering approaches. This paper provides an up-to-date review of emerging biofabrication and bioprinting strategies which use cellular aggregates and microtissues as 'building blocks' for the development of larger musculoskeletal tissues and/or organ precursors - a field of research that can potentially enable functional regeneration of damaged and diseased tissues. The application of cellular aggregates and microtissues for the engineering of musculoskeletal tissues, from vascularised bone to zonally organised articular cartilage, will be reviewed. In the context of engineering anatomically accurate tissues of scale, novel bioprinting modalities and their application in controlling the process by which cellular aggregates or microtissues self-organise is addressed, as well as key challenges facing this emerging field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.292 · 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