ReviewACS omega2025
A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in 3D Hydrogel Printing: Insights from Scopus and Web of Science (2015-2025).
Review in ACS omega, 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.
- Transforming Nanomaterials Development with Artificial Intelligence Techniques.Nanotechnology, science and applications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications related to artificial intelligence (AI) in hydrogel-based 3D printing, aiming to map the research landscape, trends, and scholarly impact of this emerging interdisciplinary field. Data were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases covering the period from 2015 to early 2025. Analytical tools, including Excel, Pycharm, OriginPro, Bibilioshiny and VOSviewer, were applied to examine publication growth, document types, geographical distribution, institutional output, and citation patterns. The results reveal a sharp increase in research activity since 2020, with China and the United States leading in publication volume. Articles and reviews constitute the majority of document types, reflecting both foundational work and critical evaluations. Institutional contributions were dominated by Chinese and Indian universities, while citation analysis highlighted influential works on smart biomaterials and AI-assisted biofabrication. The findings offer a structured overview of the field's development and provide insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners aiming to navigate or contribute to this rapidly advancing domain.
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.