ArticleMicromachines2021
Machine Assisted Experimentation of Extrusion-Based Bioprinting Systems.
Article in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Synergy of Artificial Intelligence and 3D Bioprinting: Unlocking New Frontiers in Precision and Tissue Fabrication.Advanced functional materials · 2025Article
- 3D Bioprinting and Artificial Intelligence for Tumor Microenvironment Modeling: A Scoping Review of Models, Methods, and Integration Pathways.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Machine Learning in Gel-Based Additive Manufacturing: From Material Design to Process Optimization.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Optimization of SA-Gel Hydrogel Printing Parameters for Extrusion-Based 3D Bioprinting.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-driven 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine: From bench to bedside.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Recent Developments in Bio-Ink Formulations Using Marine-Derived Biomaterials for Three-Dimensional (3D) Bioprinting.Marine drugs · 2024Review
- Hydrogel Extrusion Speed Measurements for the Optimization of Bioprinting Parameters.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Harnessing the power of machine learning into tissue engineering: current progress and future prospects.Burns & trauma · 2024Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in 3D printing physical organ models.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Machine learning and 3D bioprinting.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Article
- Machine learning boosts three-dimensional bioprinting.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Review
- Vascularization in Bioartificial Parenchymal Tissue: Bioink and Bioprinting Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Printability and Cell Viability in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting from Experimental, Computational, and Machine Learning Views.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Review
- Machine Assisted Experimentation of Extrusion-Based Bioprinting Systems.Micromachines · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Optimization of extrusion-based bioprinting (EBB) parameters have been systematically conducted through experimentation. However, the process is time- and resource-intensive and not easily translatable to other laboratories. This study approaches EBB parameter optimization through machine learning (ML) models trained using data collected from the published literature. We investigated regression-based and classification-based ML models and their abilities to predict printing outcomes of cell viability and filament diameter for cell-containing alginate and gelatin composite bioinks. In addition, we interrogated if regression-based models can predict suitable extrusion pressure given the desired cell viability when keeping other experimental parameters constant. We also compared models trained across data from general literature to models trained across data from one literature source that utilized alginate and gelatin bioinks. The results indicate that models trained on large amounts of data can impart physical trends on cell viability, filament diameter, and extrusion pressure seen in past literature. Regression models trained on the larger dataset also predict cell viability closer to experimental values for material concentration combinations not seen in training data of the single-paper-based regression models. While the best performing classification models for cell viability can achieve an average prediction accuracy of 70%, the cell viability predictions remained constant despite altering input parameter combinations. Our trained models on bioprinting literature data show the potential usage of applying ML models to bioprinting experimental design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.