Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33094177›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of bioprinting2017

Digital biomanufacturing supporting vascularization in 3D bioprinting.

William Whitford, James B Hoying

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of bioprinting, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cell powered biobots and more perspectives for IJB.International journal of bioprinting · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

William WhitfordBioProcess, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, 925 West 1800 South, Logan, UT 84321, USA.
James B HoyingAdvanced Solutions Life Sciences, 1901 Nelson Miller Parkway, Louisville, KY 40223, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synergies in bioprinting are appearing from individual researchers focusing on divergent aspects of the technology. Many are now evolving from simple mono-dimensional operations to model-controlled multi-material, interpenetrating networks using multi-modal deposition techniques. Bioinks are being designed to address numerous critical process parameters. Both the cellular constructs and architectural design for the necessary vascular component in digitally biomanufactured tissue constructs are being addressed. Advances are occurring from the topology of the circuits to the source of the of the biological microvessel components. Instruments monitoring and control of these activates are becoming interconnected. More and higher quality data are being collected and analysis is becoming richer. Information management and model generation is now describing a "process network." This is promising; more efficient use of both locally and imported raw data supporting accelerated strategic as well as tactical decision making. This allows real time optimization of the immediate bioprinting bioprocess based on such high value criteria as instantaneous progress assessment and comparison to previous activities. Finally, operations up- and down-stream of the deposition are being included in a supervisory enterprise control.

Indexed as

bioinksbiomanufacturingbioprintingdigitalmicrovasculaturesvasculogenesis

Identifiers

PMID33094177
PMCPMC7575623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.