Biomaterials / bioinks and extrusion bioprinting
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
Bioinks are formulations of biomaterials and living cells, sometimes with growth factors or other biomolecules, while extrusion bioprinting is an emerging technique to apply or deposit these bioinks or biomaterial solutions to create three-dimensional (3D) constructs with architectures and mechanical/biological properties that mimic those of native human tissue or organs. Printed constructs have found wide applications in tissue engineering for repairing or treating tissue/organ injuries, as well as in vitro tissue modelling for testing or validating newly developed therapeutics and vaccines prior to their use in humans. Successful printing of constructs and their subsequent applications rely on the properties of the formulated bioinks, including the rheological, mechanical, and biological properties, as well as the printing process. This article critically reviews the latest developments in bioinks and biomaterial solutions for extrusion bioprinting, focusing on bioink synthesis and characterization, as well as the influence of bioink properties on the printing process. Key issues and challenges are also discussed along with recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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