ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Reasoning on Pore Terminology in 3D Bioprinting.
Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- A Thermoresponsive, Electrically Conductive Bioink Optimized for Electroactive Tissue Engineering and Bioelectronics.ACS applied bio materials · 2026Article
- Recent Developments in Glioblastoma-On-A-Chip for Advanced Drug Screening Applications.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Review
- Impact of Hydroxyapatite on Gelatin/Oxidized Alginate 3D-Printed Cryogel Scaffolds.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preliminary study on the preparation of antler powder/chitosan/β-glycerophosphate sodium/polyvinyl alcohol porous hydrogel scaffolds and their osteogenic effects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: insights across various tissue types.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Terminology is pivotal for facilitating clear communication and minimizing ambiguity, especially in specialized fields such as chemistry. In materials science, a subset of chemistry, the term "pore" is traditionally linked to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nomenclature, which categorizes pores into "micro", "meso", and "macro" based on size. However, applying this terminology in closely-related areas, such as 3D bioprinting, often leads to confusion owing to the lack of consensus on specific definitions and classifications tailored to each field. This review article critically examines the current use of pore terminology in the context of 3D bioprinting, highlighting the need for reassessment to avoid potential misunderstandings. We propose an alternative classification that aligns more closely with the specific requirements of bioprinting, suggesting a tentative size-based division of interconnected pores into 'parvo'-(d < 25 µm), 'medio'-(25 < d < 100 µm), and 'magno'-(d > 100 µm) pores, relying on the current understanding of the pore size role in tissue formation. The introduction of field-specific terminology for pore sizes in 3D bioprinting is essential to enhance the clarity and precision of research communication. This represents a step toward a more cohesive and specialized lexicon that aligns with the unique aspects of bioprinting and tissue engineering.
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.