A review of the current state of the art in gelatin methacryloyl-based printing inks in bone tissue engineering
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
Achieving efficient scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (TE) requires smartly defined parameters for reaching a balance between physical–chemical properties, biocompatibility and complex architectures. Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers precise geometry control of the desired scaffold at micro-scale. However, the performance of 3D printing is highly dependent on the formulation, the challenge being to achieve the suitable ink and establish the most efficient printing parameters. Gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) emerges as a promising ink due to superior biological properties, photocrosslinking ability and printability. The present review focuses on the evolution of GelMA-based inks and bioinks from the simplest to the most advanced multicomponent formulations capable of bone tissue regeneration. Additionally, a comparative analysis between the different photoinitiators is covered, indicating each one's advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, the main printing and bioprinting methods that are used in GelMA printing are outlined with the required parameters and their influence on the final product 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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