Article3D printing in medicine2025
Machine learning-assisted finite element modeling of additively manufactured meta-materials.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-driven biomaterial design: an intelligent closed loop from reverse design to biological response.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
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
Mechanical characterization of three-dimensional (3D) printed meta-biomaterials is rapidly becoming a crucial step in the development of novel medical device concepts, including those used in functionally graded implants for orthopedic applications. Finite element simulations are a valid, FDA-acknowledged alternative to experimental tests, which are time-consuming, expensive, and labor-intensive. However, when applied to 3D-printed meta-biomaterials, state-of-the-art finite element modeling approaches are becoming increasingly complex, while their accuracy remains limited. A critical condition for accurate simulation results is the identification of correct modelling parameters. This study proposes a machine learning-based strategy for identifying model parameters, including material properties and model boundary conditions, to enable accurate simulations of macro-scale mechanical behavior. To achieve this goal, a physics-informed artificial neural network model (PIANN) was developed and trained using data generated through a fully automated finite element modeling workflow. Subsequently, the PIANN model was then tested using real experimental force-displacement data as its input. The experimental data from 3D-printed structures were used to predict the associated parameters for finite element modeling. Finally, the workflow was validated by qualitatively and quantitatively comparing simulation results to the experimental data. Based on these results, we concluded that the proposed workflow could identify model parameters such that the predictions of associated finite element simulations are in agreement with experimental observations. Furthermore, resulting finite element models were found to outperform state-of-the-art models in terms of both quantitative and qualitative accuracy. Therefore, the proposed strategy has the potential to facilitate the broader application of finite element simulations in evaluating 3D-printed parts, in general, and 3D-printed meta-biomaterials, in particular.
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.