3D Printing‐Based Hydrogel Dressings for Wound Healing
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
Skin wounds have become an important issue that affects human health and burdens global medical care. Hydrogel materials similar to the natural extracellular matrix (ECM) are one of the best candidates for ideal wound dressings and the most feasible choices for printing inks. Distinct from hydrogels made by traditional technologies, which lack bionic and mechanical properties, 3D printing can promptly and accurately create hydrogels with complex bioactive structures and the potential to promote tissue regeneration and wound healing. Herein, a comprehensive review of multi-functional 3D printing-based hydrogel dressings for wound healing is presented. The review first summarizes the 3D printing techniques for wound hydrogel dressings, including photo-curing, extrusion, inkjet, and laser-assisted 3D printing. Then, the properties and design approaches of a series of bioinks composed of natural, synthetic, and composite polymers for 3D printing wound hydrogel dressings are described. Thereafter, the application of multi-functional 3D printing-based hydrogel dressings in a variety of wound environments is discussed in depth, including hemostasis, anti-inflammation, antibacterial, skin appendage regeneration, intelligent monitoring, and machine learning-assisted therapy. Finally, the challenges and prospects of 3D printing-based hydrogel dressings for wound healing are presented.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it