ReviewExpert reviews in molecular medicine2025
From Medical Imaging to Bioprinted Tissues: The Importance of Workflow Optimisation for Improved Cell Function.
Review in Expert reviews in molecular 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.
- Bioinks in systems biology: integrating biomaterial design with cellular network modelling for predictive biofabrication.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe rapid advancement of 3D bioprinting is transforming possibilities in tissue engineering and personalised medicine, offering innovative solutions to critical biomedical challenges such as organ shortages and the need for precise 3D cellular models. To fully unlock the potential of this technology, anoptimised and comprehensive workflow is essential.
methodsThis review provides a systematic examination of the bioprinting process, covering key steps from medical image acquisition to the validation of bioprinted structures. The analysis includes biomaterial and cell type selection, conversion of DICOM images into 3D-printable models, and slicing techniques.
resultsKey factors influencing the precision, viability, and clinical relevance of bioprinted tissues are identified. Comparisons between planar and non-planar slicing algorithms highlight their impact on scaffold integrity. The review also discusses advancements in algorithm development, bioprinter technology, and biomaterial optimisation, emphasising their role in enhancing reproducibility and functionality.
conclusionsThis structured review offers actionable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming to refine bioprinting workflows. By integrating improvements across imaging, modelling, and material selection, 3D bioprinting can more effectively support the development of clinically relevant constructs, advancing regenerative medicine and personalisedhealthcare.
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.