ReviewBiomedicines2026
3D Cell Printing and Manipulation with Magnetic Bioinks.
Review in Biomedicines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models more faithfully reproduce native tissue organization and function than conventional two-dimensional systems, yet many existing bioprinting methods depend on scaffolds, complex instrumentation, or limited control over cell positioning. This review examines magnetic bioinks as a versatile platform for contactless 3D cell manipulation and biofabrication. It first outlines the fundamentals of magnetophoresis and defines magnetic bioinks as combinations of magnetic agents, including magnetic nanoparticles or paramagnetic salts, with biological components such as cells, proteins, or fluids. The review then compares label-based strategies, in which cells are magnetized and guided by positive magnetophoresis, with label-free approaches that exploit magnetic susceptibility differences to position diamagnetic cells through negative magnetophoresis. Across these methods, magnetic bioinks have enabled single-cell sorting, spatial patterning, spheroid and co-culture assembly, multilayer tissue formation, and hydrogel-integrated printing. These capabilities support applications in disease modeling, drug screening, biosensing, regenerative medicine, and emerging biofabrication under microgravity conditions. The paper also highlights key limitations, including nanoparticle biocompatibility, paramagnetic salt toxicity, osmotic stress, and the need for better assay standardization and translational validation. Overall, magnetic bioinks represent a promising scaffold-free approach for rapidly producing physiologically relevant 3D biological constructs for research and clinical innovation.
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.