The ‘bIUreactor’: an open-source 3D tissue research platform

1. Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
2. Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
3. Viabilitycomparable to control (no figure)Cell viability: reported
4. Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
5. StandardISO 13485Standard compliance: reported

• Cell viabilitycomparable to control (no figure)

  [curated] "Cell viability, assessed by CellTiter-Blue and LIVE/DEAD tests, resulted comparable with the control"; the paper gives no percentage. The extractor had taken "10% v/v Fetal Bovine Serum".

• Reported against a written standardISO 13485

  (Supplement 5) Class VI biomaterial manufactured in ISO 13485 facilities 13.

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

  2/1–5

  Coarse peristaltic control demonstrated only at 10 mL/min; Doppler could not resolve 1 mL/min from zero flow; no pulsation or flow-accuracy data.

• Throughput

  3/2–5

  Four pump heads run 5-day continuous perfusion but are all driven by one shared stepper motor, so not independently controlled; media exchange remains manual.

• Parts sourcing

  4/2–4

  Mostly off-the-shelf or kit-based 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

  Five-day run holding 10 mL/min and 50 +/- 0.47 rpm with thermal/wear tracking, Doppler at 0/1/5/10 mL/min and a calibration supplement, but no commercial-pump benchmark.

• Cycle time

  3/1–4

  No timing comparison reported; priming and perfusion times are never contrasted with commercial pumps or manual media handling.