Printability and Cell Viability in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting from Experimental, Computational, and Machine Learning Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extrusion bioprinting is an emerging technology to apply biomaterials precisely with living cells (referred to as bioink) layer by layer to create three-dimensional (3D) functional constructs for tissue engineering. Printability and cell viability are two critical issues in the extrusion bioprinting process; printability refers to the capacity to form and maintain reproducible 3D structure and cell viability characterizes the amount or percentage of survival cells during printing. Research reveals that both printability and cell viability can be affected by various parameters associated with the construct design, bioinks, and bioprinting process. This paper briefly reviews the literature with the aim to identify the affecting parameters and highlight the methods or strategies for rigorously determining or optimizing them for improved printability and cell viability. This paper presents the review and discussion mainly from experimental, computational, and machine learning (ML) views, given their promising in this field. It is envisioned that ML will be a powerful tool to advance bioprinting for tissue engineering.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".