Three-Dimensional Printing for Accessible and Personalized Ophthalmic Care: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 2.2 billion people across the globe face significant barriers to accessing essential ophthalmic care, with elderly, rural, and refugee populations being disproportionately affected, deepening existing disparities in eye care. Three-dimensional printing is a novel technology that has the potential to transform the field and improve access by alleviating many patient-specific barriers. This article delves into the evolution of 3D printing within ophthalmology, highlighting its current applications and future potential. It explores various 3D printing techniques and numerous biomaterials discussing their effectiveness in creating advanced solutions such as bioengineered corneas, ocular prosthetics, and innovative treatments for dry eye syndrome, from punctal plugs to lacrimal gland models. Additionally, 3D printing has revolutionized drug delivery systems for conditions like glaucoma, retinal diseases, and ocular brachytherapy. Whether through 3D printed contact lens-based drug delivery systems or polycaprolactone implants that biodegrade and provide sustained drug release without adverse effects, these systems hold immense potential in the field. Despite its promise, the integration of 3D printing into clinical practice presents challenges, which the article addresses alongside strategies for overcoming them. By mapping out the technological advancements and challenges, this review offers a roadmap for enhancing global eye care accessibility and improving patient outcomes on a global scale.
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
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".