ArticleBiofabrication2023
Approximating scaffold printability utilizing computational methods.
Article in Biofabrication, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative applications of multidimensional engineered hydrogels in wound healing.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Review
- Machine Learning in Predicting and Optimizing Polymer Printability for 3D Bioprinting.Polymers · 2025Review
- AI-driven 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine: From bench to bedside.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- A robotic arm with open-source reconstructive workflow forApplied physics reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bioprinting facilitates the generation of complex, three-dimensional (3D), cell-based constructs for various applications. Although multiple bioprinting technologies have been developed, extrusion-based systems have become the dominant technology due to the diversity of materials (bioinks) that can be utilized, either individually or in combination. However, each bioink has unique material properties and extrusion characteristics that affect bioprinting utility, accuracy, and precision. Here, we have extended our previous work to achieve high precision (i.e. repeatability) and printability across samples by optimizing bioink-specific printing parameters. Specifically, we hypothesized that a fuzzy inference system (FIS) could be used as a computational method to address the imprecision in 3D bioprinting test data and uncover the optimal printing parameters for a specific bioink that result in high accuracy and precision. To test this hypothesis, we have implemented a FIS model consisting of four inputs (bioink concentration, printing flow rate, speed, and temperature) and two outputs to quantify the precision (scaffold bioprinted linewidth variance) and printability. We validate our use of the bioprinting precision index with both standard and normalized printability factors. Finally, we utilize optimized printing parameters to bioprint scaffolds containing up to 30 × 10
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.