MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402442796 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ad795c

Innovative 3D bioprinting approaches for advancing brain science and medicine: a literature review

2024· review· en· W4402442796 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
Keywords3D bioprintingRegenerative medicineNeuroscienceComputer scienceField (mathematics)Brain researchNanotechnologyEngineeringEngineering ethicsTissue engineeringBiomedical engineeringBiologyMaterials scienceStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advancements in 3D printing technology have revolutionized the field of tissue engineering, particularly in the development of neural tissues for the treatment of nervous system diseases. Brain neural tissue, composed of neurons and glial cells, plays a crucial role in the functioning of the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system by transmitting nerve impulses and processing information. By leveraging 3D bioprinting and bioinks, researchers can create intricate neural scaffolds that facilitate the proliferation and differentiation of nerve cells, thereby promoting the repair and regeneration of damaged neural tissues. This technology allows for the precise spatial arrangement of various cell types and scaffold materials, enabling the construction of complex neural tissue models that closely mimic the natural architecture of the brain. Human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have emerged as a groundbreaking tool in neuroscience research and the potential treatment of neurological diseases. These cells can differentiate into diverse cell types within the nervous system, including neurons, astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and Schwann cells, providing a versatile platform for studying neural networks, neurodevelopment, and neurodegenerative disorders. The use of hiPSCs also opens new avenues for personalized medicine, allowing researchers to model diseases and develop targeted therapies based on individual patient profiles. Despite the promise of direct hiPSC injections for therapeutic purposes, challenges such as poor localization and limited integration have led to the exploration of biomaterial scaffolds as supportive platforms for cell delivery and tissue regeneration. This paper reviews the integration of 3D bioprinting technologies and bioink materials in neuroscience applications, offering a unique platform to create complex brain and tissue architectures that mimic the mechanical, architectural, and biochemical properties of native tissues. These advancements provide robust tools for modelling, repair, and drug screening applications. The review highlights current research, identifies research gaps, and offers recommendations for future studies on 3D bioprinting in neuroscience. The investigation demonstrates the significant potential of 3D bioprinting to fabricate brain-like tissue constructs, which holds great promise for regenerative medicine and drug testing models. This approach offers new avenues for studying brain diseases and potential treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it