ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Influence of the physico-chemical bioink composition on the printability and cell biological properties in 3D-bioprinting of a liver tumor cell line.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- 3D bioprinting of microfluidic systems for cardiac regenerative medicine: from biofabrication to organ-on-a-chip.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- A toolbox for microvalve-based bioprinting.Biofabrication · 2026Article
- Biofabrication of HepG2 Cells-Laden 3D Structures Using Nanocellulose-Reinforced Gelatin-Based Hydrogel Bioinks: Materials Characterization, Cell Viability Assessment, and Metabolomic Analysis.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Article
- High-Scale 3D-Bioprinting Platform for the Automated Production of Vascularized Organs-on-a-Chip.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Article
- Advancements of 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine: Exploring cell sources for organ fabrication.Heliyon · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of a suitable matrix material is crucial for the development of functional, biomimetic tissue and organ models. When these tissue models are fabricated with 3D-bioprinting technology, the requirements do not only include the biological functionality and physico-chemical properties, but also the printability. In our work, we therefore present a detailed study of seven different bioinks with the focus on a functional liver carcinoma model. Agarose, gelatin, collagen and their blends were selected as materials based on their benefits for 3D cell culture and Drop-on-Demand (DoD) bioprinting. The formulations were characterized for their mechanical (G' of 10-350 Pa) and rheological (viscosity 2-200 Pa*s) properties as well as albumin diffusivity (8-50 μm
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.