Recent Advances in Modeling Tissues Using 3D Bioprinted Nanocellulose Bioinks
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
Bioprinting creates 3D tissue models by depositing cells encapsulated in biocompatible materials. These 3D printed models can better emulate physiological conditions in comparison with traditional 2D cell cultures or animal models. Such models can be produced from human cells, possessing human genetics and replicating the 3D microenvironment found in vivo. Many different types of biocompatible materials serve as bioinks, including gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), alginate, fibrin, and gelatin. Nanocellulose has emerged as a promising addition to these materials. Nanocellulose─composed of cellulose chain bundles with lateral dimensions ranging from a few to several tens of nanometers─possesses key properties for 3D bioprinting applications. It can form biocompatible hydrogels, which have excellent physical properties, and its structure resembles collagen, making it useful for modeling tissues with high collagen content such as bone, cartilage, sink, and muscle. Here we review some of the recent advances in the use of nanocellulose in bioinks for the creation of bone, cartilage, skin, and muscle tissue specific models and identify areas for future progress.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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