Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34209404›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2021

Machine Assisted Experimentation of Extrusion-Based Bioprinting Systems.

Shuyu Tian, Rory Stevens, Bridget T McInnes, Nastassja A Lewinski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Machine learning and 3D bioprinting.International journal of bioprinting · 2023
    Article
  11. Machine learning boosts three-dimensional bioprinting.International journal of bioprinting · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shuyu TianDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6444-651X
Rory StevensDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Bridget T McInnesDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Nastassja A LewinskiDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Jeffress Trust Foundation N/A
6 · The paper itself

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

3D bioprinting3D printingalginateartificial intelligenceclassificationextrusion-based bioprintinggelatinmachine learningrandom forestregression

Identifiers

PMID34209404
PMCPMC8305959
OpenAlexW3174498815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.