MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367322327 · doi:10.1016/j.ajps.2023.100812

Additive manufacturing of sustainable biomaterials for biomedical applications

2023· review· en· W4367322327 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
Keywords3D bioprintingBiopolymerNanotechnology3D printingBiocompatibilityEnvironmentally friendlyMaterials scienceDrug delivery3d printedTissue engineeringBiocompatible materialBiomedical engineeringPolymerEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biopolymers are promising environmentally benign materials applicable in multifarious applications. They are especially favorable in implantable biomedical devices thanks to their excellent unique properties, including bioactivity, renewability, bioresorbability, biocompatibility, biodegradability and hydrophilicity. Additive manufacturing (AM) is a flexible and intricate manufacturing technology, which is widely used to fabricate biopolymer-based customized products and structures for advanced healthcare systems. Three-dimensional (3D) printing of these sustainable materials is applied in functional clinical settings including wound dressing, drug delivery systems, medical implants and tissue engineering. The present review highlights recent advancements in different types of biopolymers, such as proteins and polysaccharides, which are employed to develop different biomedical products by using extrusion, vat polymerization, laser and inkjet 3D printing techniques in addition to normal bioprinting and four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting techniques. This review also incorporates the influence of nanoparticles on the biological and mechanical performances of 3D-printed tissue scaffolds. This work also addresses current challenges as well as future developments of environmentally friendly polymeric materials manufactured through the AM techniques. Ideally, there is a need for more focused research on the adequate blending of these biodegradable biopolymers for achieving useful results in targeted biomedical areas. We envision that biopolymer-based 3D-printed composites have the potential to revolutionize the biomedical sector in the near future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it