Optimized 3D Bioprinting Technology Based on Machine Learning: A Review of Recent Trends and Advances
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
The need for organ transplants has risen, but the number of available organ donations for transplants has stagnated worldwide. Regenerative medicine has been developed to make natural organs or tissue-like structures with biocompatible materials and solve the donor shortage problem. Using biomaterials and embedded cells, a bioprinter enables the fabrication of complex and functional three-dimensional (3D) structures of the organs or tissues for regenerative medicine. Moreover, conventional surgical 3D models are made of rigid plastic or rubbers, preventing surgeons from interacting with real organ or tissue-like models. Thus, finding suitable biomaterials and printing methods will accelerate the printing of sophisticated organ structures and the development of realistic models to refine surgical techniques and tools before the surgery. In addition, printing parameters (e.g., printing speed, dispensing pressure, and nozzle diameter) considered in the bioprinting process should be optimized. Therefore, machine learning (ML) technology can be a powerful tool to optimize the numerous bioprinting parameters. Overall, this review paper is focused on various ideas on the ML applications of 3D printing and bioprinting to optimize parameters and procedures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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