Development of a microfluidic-assisted open-source 3D bioprinting system (MOS3S) for the engineering of hierarchical tissues

1. Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
2. Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
3. Viability—Cell viability: not reported
4. Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
5. Standard—Standard compliance: not reported

The full text was read and states no figure for any of the five.

Each score is shown against the range the other 59 builds actually occupy, because no criterion uses the full 1–5 scale. These describe how reproducible the build is, not how good the science is.

• Resolution

  3/1–5

  Dispensed 50-280 uL (n=3) with Bland-Altman error growing as volume falls; printing flow rates 10-30 uL/min producing 250 µm strands; no pulsation data.

• Throughput

  4/2–5

  Three 3D-printed syringe pumps on separate stepper drivers addressed independently by G-code via DISTINCT_E_FACTORS, with automated ink switching and unattended 20-layer gradient prints.

• Parts sourcing

  3/2–4

  Mix of common parts and custom/printed components.

• Skill needed

  4/2–4

  Build/operation described as low-skill or basic assembly.

• Facilities needed

  4/2–4

  Uses common benchtop/desktop equipment or generic consumables.

• Documentation

  4/2–5

  Open resources include several build or operation artifacts.

• Validation effort

  3/2–4

  Multiple volumes, six hydrogel formulations, collapse test and strand/pore measurement against design, but no experimental benchmark against a commercial bioprinter or pump.

• Cycle time

  3/1–4

  No timing comparison reported; ink transition took 8 min at 20 uL/min and 16 min at 10 uL/min with no conventional reference.