The Additive Manufacturing Approach to Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) Microfluidic Devices: Review and Future Directions
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
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature for fabricating PDMS microfluidic devices by employing additive manufacturing (AM) processes. AM processes for PDMS microfluidic devices are first classified into (i) the direct printing approach and (ii) the indirect printing approach. The scope of the review covers both approaches, though the focus is on the printed mold approach, which is a kind of the so-called replica mold approach or soft lithography approach. This approach is, in essence, casting PDMS materials with the mold which is printed. The paper also includes our on-going effort on the printed mold approach. The main contribution of this paper is the identification of knowledge gaps and elaboration of future work toward closing the knowledge gaps in fabrication of PDMS microfluidic devices. The second contribution is the development of a novel classification of AM processes from design thinking. There is also a contribution in clarifying confusion in the literature regarding the soft lithography technique; this classification has provided a consistent ontology in the sub-field of the fabrication of microfluidic devices involving AM processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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