Direct ink writing of aloe vera/cellulose nanofibrils bio-hydrogels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct-ink-writing (DIW) of hydrogels has become an attractive research area due to its capability to fabricate intricate, complex, and highly customizable structures at ambient conditions for various applications, including biomedical purposes. In the current study, cellulose nanofibrils reinforced aloe vera bio-hydrogels were utilized to develop 3D geometries through the DIW technique. The hydrogels revealed excellent viscoelastic properties enabled extruding thin filaments through a nozzle with a diameter of 630 μm. Accordingly, the lattice structures were printed precisely with a suitable resolution. The 3D-printed structures demonstrated significant wet stability due to the high aspect ratio of the nano- and microfibrils cellulose, reinforced the hydrogels, and protected the shape from extensive shrinkage upon drying. Furthermore, all printed samples had a porosity higher than 80% and a high-water uptake capacity of up to 46 g/g. Altogether, these fully bio-based, porous, and wet stable 3D structures might have an opportunity in biomedical fields.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".