Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37469394›Full record

ArticleResearch (Washington, D.C.)2023

Machine Learning in Predicting Printable Biomaterial Formulations for Direct Ink Writing.

Hongyi Chen, Yuanchang Liu, Stavroula Balabani, Ryuji Hirayama, Jie Huang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research (Washington, D.C.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Hongyi ChenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-6648
Yuanchang LiuDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.
Stavroula BalabaniDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.
Ryuji HirayamaDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.
Jie HuangDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7951-2217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is emerging as a transformative technology for biomedical engineering. The 3D printed product can be patient-specific by allowing customizability and direct control of the architecture. The trial-and-error approach currently used for developing the composition of printable inks is time- and resource-consuming due to the increasing number of variables requiring expert knowledge. Artificial intelligence has the potential to reshape the ink development process by forming a predictive model for printability from experimental data. In this paper, we constructed machine learning (ML) algorithms including decision tree, random forest (RF), and deep learning (DL) to predict the printability of biomaterials. A total of 210 formulations including 16 different bioactive and smart materials and 4 solvents were 3D printed, and their printability was assessed. All ML methods were able to learn and predict the printability of a variety of inks based on their biomaterial formulations. In particular, the RF algorithm has achieved the highest accuracy (88.1%), precision (90.6%), and F1 score (87.0%), indicating the best overall performance out of the 3 algorithms, while DL has the highest recall (87.3%). Furthermore, the ML algorithms have predicted the printability window of biomaterials to guide the ink development. The printability map generated with DL has finer granularity than other algorithms. ML has proven to be an effective and novel strategy for developing biomaterial formulations with desired 3D printability for biomedical engineering applications.

Identifiers

PMID37469394
PMCPMC10353544

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.