ArticleMaterials today. Bio2026
Engineering high-fidelity bone organoids: Operational classification, multilineage crosstalk, biofabrication evidence, and translational validation.
Article in Materials today. Bio, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone organoids are emerging as three-dimensional models of skeletal development, disease and regeneration. The term bone organoid is applied inconsistently to osteogenic spheroids, scaffold-dominated constructs and self-organizing skeletal tissues. This review establishes an operational five-class framework that distinguishes osteogenic spheroids, bone-like microtissues, engineered skeletal constructs, bone organoids and high-fidelity bone organoids. Core organoid criteria are separated from advanced, application-dependent features, and a structured evidence map applies the terminology to representative original studies. We summarize the coordinated osteogenic, chondrogenic, vascular, neural and immune programs that govern bone formation and examine how cell source, induction sequence, matrix composition, mass transport and mechanical stimulation affect maturation. Inkjet, extrusion, laser-assisted and photocuring-based bioprinting are compared using common technical and biological criteria, including resolution, viscosity, cell density, injury mechanisms, mineral compatibility, perfusable channels, scalability and direct bone-organoid evidence. Current data show that printing reliably controls initial geometry, but rarely demonstrates improved self-organization, multilineage interaction or long-term function relative to composition-matched controls. Translational requirements are therefore evaluated separately for developmental and genetic disease, metabolic and inflammatory disease, tumor-bone interactions, drug screening and regenerative grafts. We also define material-aware controls for active mineralization and scale-resolved mechanical testing. Available models reproduce important subsets of bone biology; however, among the representative studies examined, no single platform yet demonstrates hierarchical matrix maturation, coupled formation-resorption and controlled mechanosensitivity in combination. These evidence thresholds provide a practical basis for terminology, benchmarking and future translation.
Indexed as
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.