Bibliographic record
Abstract
Printable electronics for neurotechnology is a rapidly emerging field that leverages various printing techniques to fabricate electronic devices, offering advantages in rapid prototyping, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. These devices have promising applications in neurobiology, enabling the recording of neuronal signals and controlled drug delivery. This review provides an overview of printing techniques, materials used in neural device fabrication, and their applications. The printing techniques discussed include inkjet, screen printing, flexographic printing, 3D printing, and more. Each method has its unique advantages and challenges, ranging from precise printing and high resolution to material compatibility and scalability. Selecting the right materials for printable devices is crucial, considering factors like biocompatibility, flexibility, electrical properties, and durability. Conductive materials such as metallic nanoparticles and conducting polymers are commonly used in neurotechnology. Dielectric materials, like polyimide and polycaprolactone, play a vital role in device fabrication. Applications of printable devices in neurotechnology encompass various neuroprobes, electrocorticography arrays, and microelectrode arrays. These devices offer flexibility, biocompatibility, and scalability, making them cost-effective and suitable for preclinical research. However, several challenges need to be addressed, including biocompatibility, precision, electrical performance, long-term stability, and regulatory hurdles. This review highlights the potential of printable electronics in advancing our understanding of the brain and treating neurological disorders while emphasizing the importance of overcoming these challenges.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".