ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine-Learning-Assisted Quantitative Printability Assessment in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting-A Systems-Engineering Proof-of-Concept.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extrusion-based bioprinting is governed by coupled material, extrusion, and motion parameters, yet printability is often assessed using isolated rheological tests or qualitative geometric inspection. This study developed a systems-engineering framework for the quantitative assessment of non-cellular syringe-extrusion printing, with relevance to future bioprinting applications. Thirty-six constructs covered a complete 3 × 3 × 4 factorial design comprising three nozzle diameters, three printhead velocities, and four reference trajectories, with one independently printed construct per unique condition. Fiji/ImageJ analysis quantified filament width, edge roughness, curvature, and trajectory fidelity, and a study-relative Printability Score (PS) integrated four normalized geometric error domains. PS rankings were robust to moderate changes in component weighting (Spearman ρ = 0.955-0.999). PCA identified distinct deposition- and geometry-related modes; PC1, PC2, and PC3 explained 51.18%, 23.06%, and 11.69% of the variance, respectively (85.92% cumulative). Under LOOCV, raw-input Ridge Regression achieved R2 = 0.713, MAE = 0.195, and RMSE = 0.285, whereas Gradient Boosting achieved R2 = 0.709, MAE = 0.216, and RMSE = 0.288. Cross-validated permutation analyses identified printhead speed and trajectory geometry as the most informative raw predictors. These findings establish an offline engineering proof of concept rather than replicated confirmatory validation, biological validation, or closed-loop control.
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.