ReviewJACS Au2023
Trends in Photopolymerizable Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting of Tumor Models.
Review in JACS Au, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering Multiscale Vasculature: Biological Principles, Design Constraints, and Advanced Biofabrication Strategies for Functional Vascular Networks.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 3D Bioprinting for Tumor Microenvironment Reconstruction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- From Technological Innovation to Clinical Translation: Progress and Challenges in 3D Bioprinting for the Development of Breast Cancer Bone Metastasis Models.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Tumor-on-chip's alliance with molecular pathology against metastatic disease.Journal of biomedical science · 2026Review
- 3D Bioprinting and Microfluidic-based Devices for Cancer Detection and Drug Treatment: Focus on Prostate Cancer.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Advances in screening hyperthermic nanomedicines in 3D tumor models.Nanoscale horizons · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technologies involving photopolymerizable bioinks (PBs) have attracted enormous attention in recent times owing to their ability to recreate complex structures with high resolution, mechanical stability, and favorable printing conditions that are suited for encapsulating cells. 3D bioprinted tissue constructs involving PBs can offer better insights into the tumor microenvironment and offer platforms for drug screening to advance cancer research. These bioinks enable the incorporation of physiologically relevant cell densities, tissue-mimetic stiffness, and vascularized channels and biochemical gradients in the 3D tumor models, unlike conventional two-dimensional (2D) cultures or other 3D scaffold fabrication technologies. In this perspective, we present the emerging techniques of 3D bioprinting using PBs in the context of cancer research, with a specific focus on the efforts to recapitulate the complexity of the tumor microenvironment. We describe printing approaches and various PB formulations compatible with these techniques along with recent attempts to bioprint 3D tumor models for studying migration and metastasis, cell-cell interactions, cell-extracellular matrix interactions, and drug screening relevant to cancer. We discuss the limitations and identify unexplored opportunities in this field for clinical and commercial translation of these emerging technologies.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.