MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412448220 · doi:10.1016/j.coelec.2025.101730

Shaping the next-generation of fused deposition modeling three-dimensional-printing-based electrochemical (bio)sensing: Drawing a realistic horizon

2025· article· en· W4412448220 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Miriam Chávez, Fabiana Arduini, Alberto Escarpa

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Electrochemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónFederación Española de Enfermedades RarasComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsDeposition (geology)3D printingHorizonElectrochemistryNanotechnologyFused deposition modelingComputer scienceMaterials scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringGeologyMetallurgyElectrodeChemistryMathematicsGeometryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of 3D-printing as a fabrication tool has revolutionized the development of customized electrochemical (bio)sensors offering exceptional design flexibility, cost-effective and rapid prototyping. Among the additive manufacturing technologies, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) stands out for its affordability, ease of use, and the growing availability of conductive filaments, providing a new approach to produce tailored electrodes with an enormous analytical potential and capabilities. This perspective presents a critical overview of the current opportunities and limitations of FDM-3D-printing as a technology for the design and development of electrochemical (bio)sensors, addressing material formulation, electrode architecture, surface modification strategies, analytical performance and emerging applications. Current challenges and directions to overcome them are identified and discussed, drawing a realistic horizon for the next generation of FDM-3D-printed electrochemical (bio)sensors.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in ElectrochemistrySame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207