Recent Developments in Bio-Ink Formulations Using Marine-Derived Biomaterials for Three-Dimensional (3D) Bioprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D bioprinting is a disruptive, computer-aided, and additive manufacturing technology that allows the obtention, layer-by-layer, of 3D complex structures. This technology is believed to offer tremendous opportunities in several fields including biomedical, pharmaceutical, and food industries. Several bioprinting processes and bio-ink materials have emerged recently. However, there is still a pressing need to develop low-cost sustainable bio-ink materials with superior qualities (excellent mechanical, viscoelastic and thermal properties, biocompatibility, and biodegradability). Marine-derived biomaterials, including polysaccharides and proteins, represent a viable and renewable source for bio-ink formulations. Therefore, the focus of this review centers around the use of marine-derived biomaterials in the formulations of bio-ink. It starts with a general overview of 3D bioprinting processes followed by a description of the most commonly used marine-derived biomaterials for 3D bioprinting, with a special attention paid to chitosan, glycosaminoglycans, alginate, carrageenan, collagen, and gelatin. The challenges facing the application of marine-derived biomaterials in 3D bioprinting within the biomedical and pharmaceutical fields along with future directions are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".