MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408137166 · doi:10.1080/87559129.2025.2473006

3D Food Printing Technology: A Critical Scientometric and Systematic Review, and Future Research Directions

2025· article· en· W4408137166 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Alghamdy, Viridiana Tejada‐Ortigoza, Rafiq Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Reviews International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a scientometric analysis and systematic literature review on 3D food printing. 3D food printing offers a huge potential to revolutionize the food industry by enabling personalized and customizable food. More specifically, food can be designed and produced in precise shapes, textures, and flavors, offering new opportunities for creative food design and innovation. Furthermore, 3D food printing can contribute to a more sustainable food production by reducing food waste and energy consumption. Since this technology has been increasingly explored in the last decade as a new and innovative approach to food production, we conducted a scientometric search and analysis on Scopus database. Additionally, we analyzed relevant literature through systematic literature review method aiming at drawing a comprehensive review on techniques, materials and material development, and technology applications. Our findings revealed that the majority of the research has been conducted in material development, followed by food characterization. We have identified several research gaps and future directions of 3D food printing such as limited printable materials and food safety concerns. Moreover, our study explored barriers such as social acceptance and advancements such as the application of artificial intelligence.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.325
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.325
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.1260.080
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Reviews InternationalSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207