Advancements in Bioprinting for Medical Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter delivers an exploration into the groundbreaking field of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting for medical applications, offering both broad analysis and future perspectives. Emphasizing its pivotal role in reshaping medical science, this chapter delves into the potential impact of 3D bioprinting on tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, organ transplantation, and pharmaceutical development. The reader is guided through the practical applications, from creating skin grafts and intricate organ tissues to accelerating drug development processes with improved preclinical testing accuracy. This chapter underscores the potential of organ-on-a-chip technology in high-throughput drug screening and disease modeling. While acknowledging the revolutionary possibilities, it also brings to light significant hurdles ranging from technical limitations to ethical and regulatory concerns, fostering a balanced view. By performing a broad-based literature review primarily focusing on studies published within the last five years, our objective is to provide an insightful and up-to-date understanding of 3D bioprinting's capabilities to unlock novel therapeutic approaches and progress toward personalized medicine. With evidence-based insights, we aim to catalyze further research, innovation, and interdisciplinary collaboration in the exciting field of 3D bioprinting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".