Influence of Crosslinking on the Mechanical Behavior of 3D Printed Alginate Scaffolds: Experimental and Numerical Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue scaffolds fabricated by three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting are attracting considerableattention for tissue engineering applications. Because the mechanical properties of hydrogelscaffolds should match the damaged tissue, changing various parameters during 3D bioprintinghas been studied to manipulate the mechanical behavior of the resulting scaffolds. Crosslinkingscaffolds using a cation solution (such as CaCl2) is also important for regulating the mechanicalproperties, but has not been well documented in the literature. Here, the effect of variedcrosslinking agent volume and crosslinking time on the mechanical behavior of 3D bioplottedalginate scaffolds was evaulated using both experimental and numerical methods. Compressiontests were used to measure the elastic modulus of each scaffold, then a finite element model wasdeveloped and a power model used to predict scaffold mechanical behavior. Results showed thatcrosslinking time and volume of crosslinker both play a decisive role in modulating the mechanicalproperties of 3D bioplotted scaffolds. Because mechanical properties of scaffolds can affect cellresponse, the findings of this study can be implemented to modulate the elastic modulus ofscaffolds according to the intended application.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".