Tubular Bioartificial Organs: From Physiological Requirements to Fabrication Processes and Resulting Properties. A Critical Review
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
In this featured review manuscript, the aim is to present a critical survey on the processes available for fabricating bioartificial organs (BAOs). The focus will be on hollow tubular organs for the transport of anabolites and catabolites, i.e., vessels, trachea, esophagus, ureter and urethra, and intestine. First, the anatomic hierarchical structures of tubular organs, as well as their principal physiological functions, will be presented, as this constitutes the mandatory requirements for effectively designing and developing physiologically relevant BAOs. Second, 3D bioprinting, solution electrospinning, and melt electrowriting will be introduced, together with their capacity to match the requirements imposed by designing scaffolds compatible with the anatomical and physiologically relevant environment. Finally, the intrinsic correlation between processes, materials, and cells will be critically discussed, and directives defining the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities offered by each process will be proposed for assisting bioengineers in the selection of the appropriate process for the target BAO and its specific required functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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