Vertical Extrusion Cryo(bio)printing for Anisotropic Tissue Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the poor mechanical properties of many hydrogel bioinks, conventional 3D extrusion bioprinting is usually conducted based on the X-Y plane, where the deposited layers are stacked in the Z-direction with or without the support of prior layers. Herein, a technique is reported, taking advantage of a cryoprotective bioink to enable direct extrusion bioprinting in the vertical direction in the presence of cells, using a freezing plate with precise temperature control. Of interest, vertical 3D cryo-bioprinting concurrently allows the user to create freestanding filamentous constructs containing interconnected, anisotropic microchannels featuring gradient sizes aligned in the vertical direction, also associated with enhanced mechanical performances. Skeletal myoblasts within the 3D-cryo-bioprinted hydrogel constructs show enhanced cell viability, spreading, and alignment, compared to the same cells in the standard hydrogel constructs. This method is further extended to a multimaterial format, finding potential applications in interface tissue engineering, such as creation of the muscle-tendon unit and the muscle-microvascular unit. The unique vertical 3D cryo-bioprinting technique presented here suggests improvements in robustness and versatility to engineer certain tissue types especially those anisotropic in nature, and may extend broad utilities in tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, drug discovery, and personalized therapeutics.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".