Cell viability prediction and optimization in extrusion-based bioprinting via neural network-based Bayesian optimization models
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
The fields of regenerative medicine and cancer modeling have witnessed tremendous growth in the application of 3D bioprinting. Maintaining high cell viability throughout the bioprinting process is crucial for the success of this technology, as it directly affects the accuracy of the 3D bioprinted models, the validity of experimental results, and the discovery of new therapeutic approaches. Therefore, optimizing bioprinting conditions, which include numerous variables influencing cell viability during and after the procedure, is of utmost importance to achieve desirable results. So far, these optimizations have been accomplished primarily through trial and error and repeating multiple time-consuming and costly experiments. To address this challenge, we initiated the process by creating a dataset of these parameters for gelatin and alginate-based bioinks and the corresponding cell viability by integrating data obtained in our laboratory and those derived from the literature. Then, we developed machine learning models to predict cell viability based on different bioprinting variables. The trained neural network yielded regressionR2value of 0.71 and classification accuracy of 0.86. Compared to models that have been developed so far, the performance of our models is superior and shows great prediction results. The study further introduces a novel optimization strategy that employs the Bayesian optimization model in combination with the developed regression neural network to determine the optimal combination of the selected bioprinting parameters to maximize cell viability and eliminate trial-and-error experiments. Finally, we experimentally validated the optimization model's performance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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