Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 17 references

Novel Design of 3D Printed Tumbling Microrobots for in vivo Targeted Drug Delivery

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a 3D-printed, magnetically tumbling 3 mm microrobot with a wax-sealed 3 µL drug cavity can be steered through rat colons and triggered to release its payload when locally heated to about 39–42 °C, making it a…

desk verdict Solid prototype with real locomotion data; the 'targeted in vivo drug delivery' label outruns the evidence, and the wax cap's body-temperature margin is thinner than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00166 v1 pith:ZH6WE7H3 submitted 2025-06-30 cs.RO

Aaron C. Davis , Siting Zhang , Adalyn Meeks , Diya Sakhrani , Luis Carlos Sanjuan Acosta , D. Ethan Kelley , Emma Caldwell , Luis Solorio
show 2 more authors
Craig J. Goergen David J. Cappelleri
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords MobileMicroroboticsDrugDeliveryAdditiveManufacturingTumblingLocomotionMagneticActuationFocusedUltrasoundThermoresponsiveWaxColonPhantom
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that a 3D-printed tumbling microrobot named µTUM can carry a drug payload into the large intestine, move under a rotating magnetic field, and release the payload on demand when a temperature-sensitive wax cap is melted by local heating. The supporting results cover three design variants, top, side, and end ports, all of which move at speeds roughly linear with actuation frequency on dry and wet surfaces, in a gelatin rat-colon phantom, and in live anesthetized rat colons. The paper also reports that a paraffin–mineral oil wax mixture with mineral-oil mass fraction $w=0.6$ begins melting near 39 °C, that loaded robots release no detectable BSA at body temperature and release about 80% after heating to 38–42 °C in vitro, and that focused ultrasound releases a dye payload from the robot inside the phantom. The live-animal experiments tested locomotion only; the claim being advanced is platform feasibility, with in vivo drug release explicitly deferred to future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the thermally responsive wax cap, a mixture of paraffin wax and mineral oil whose melting point is set by the mass fraction $w$ of mineral oil. At $w=0.6$, the mixture begins to melt near 39 °C, which sits between body temperature (about 37 °C) and the 38–42 °C window considered safe for intestinal tissue; the cap is applied as a thin coating over the port openings after the cavity is filled, so the payload is released as soon as the wax starts to soften rather than waiting for full melting. The second piece of machinery is the actuation scheme: a 500 µm cube permanent magnet embedded in the chassis responds to a rotating magnetic field from the Rotating Magnetic Field Actuation System, and because magnetic torque dominates magnetic force at this scale, the robot tumbles end over end rather than being pulled. The port geometry (top, side, or end openings) is the third design variable, and it changes the release profile without changing locomotion performance.

What would settle it

One experiment would settle it: insert a wax-capped, dye- or BSA-loaded µTUM into a live rat colon, flush with saline at body temperature for several minutes, and test the effluent for payload; then apply focused ultrasound and measure both the luminal temperature and the additional payload released. If payload appears during the pre-release flushing or tumbling, or if no payload appears after the lumen reaches 40–42 °C, the central claim of on-demand, leak-free delivery fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery of the paper is a single platform, the magnetic tumbling microrobot (µTUM), that combines three previously separate capabilities in one 3 mm body: tumbling locomotion via an embedded permanent magnet in a rotating field, a hollow 3 µL cavity that can be loaded with high-concentration protein solutions, and a wax cap whose melting point is tuned by the mineral-oil fraction $w$ of a paraffin–mineral oil mixture. With $w=0.6$, the cap starts melting near 39 °C, so it holds at body temperature and opens under focused ultrasound heating to 40–42 °C. The experimental results show that top-, side-, and end-port geometries all tumble with velocity roughly proportional to field frequency, that payload filling does not degrade locomotion, and that the top-port and end-port designs release 93% and 100% of a fluorescent BSA payload after 10 minutes at 42 °C while the side-port design releases 52%. In the gelatin phantom, focused ultrasound triggered dye release from top-port robots starting at 37.7–40.9 °C. The paper's own conclusion frames these results as demonstrating controlled release in vitro and in phantom, with in vivo targeted delivery named as future work.

Load-bearing premise

The wax cap must stay sealed through insertion, saline flushing, and tumbling at 37 °C, and then melt only when focused ultrasound raises the local temperature to about 39–42 °C; this has been shown in a beaker and a gelatin phantom, not in a live colon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 3 mm µTUM can carry roughly 3 µL of a drug formulation, which the paper argues is enough to hold clinically relevant high-concentration antibody solutions.
  • Because locomotion is roughly linear in actuation frequency and is unaffected by payload state or port geometry, one control approach can be used across the three designs and for loaded or empty robots.
  • The wax formulation gives a tunable release window: changing $w$ shifts the melting point, so the same chassis could be adapted to different release temperatures or different payloads.
  • The compatibility of the permanent-magnet actuation system with ultrasound imaging means the same modality used to steer the robot can also track it in opaque environments such as the colon.
  • The 24-hour and 48-hour viability data place the resin and crushed magnet above the ISO 10993-5 threshold at 48 hours, supporting continued testing toward in vivo delivery.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A test the paper does not run is in vivo release: placing a wax-capped, loaded µTUM in a live rat colon, flushing with saline, and monitoring the lumen for payload before and after focused ultrasound would settle whether the seal survives peristalsis and tumbling.
  • The side-port design's lower in vitro release (52% vs 93–100%) suggests that port geometry controls not only where the payload exits but how completely it leaves; varying port diameter or count could give a burst-versus-sustained release dial without changing the body.
  • If the release temperature can be lowered or the cap made more robust, the platform could extend beyond the colon to other lumenal sites where a tumbling robot can fit, though the paper does not claim this.
  • The near-threshold 24-hour viability of the resin and crushed-magnet groups suggests that encapsulating the magnet or coating the chassis could be a prudent next safety step before repeated in vivo use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The authors report the design, fabrication, and characterization of a 3 mm SLA-printed tumbling magnetic microrobot (µTUM) with a 3 µL drug reservoir sealed by a paraffin/mineral-oil wax cap. Locomotion is characterized in vitro on dry and wet surfaces, in a gelatin colon phantom, and in live rat colons under a rotating permanent-magnet actuation system. Drug release is demonstrated in vitro with fluorescent BSA under hotplate heating and in a colon phantom under focused ultrasound, using a wax formulation tuned to melt in a nominal 38–42 °C window. Biocompatibility of the printed resin and nickel-coated magnets is assessed with NIH3T3 cells. The paper concludes that the platform is promising for targeted in vivo drug delivery in the large intestine and explicitly defers in vivo drug release and efficacy studies to future work.

Significance. The work is a useful engineering contribution with several concrete strengths: systematic velocity and incline data across three designs and two media; a realistic colon phantom derived from rat anatomy; a thermal trigger aimed at a benign 38–42 °C window and actuated by focused ultrasound; and in vivo tumbling locomotion in live rat colons under ultrasound imaging. The claims are direct measurements rather than derived predictions, so there is no circularity concern; the wax composition is a tuned design parameter. However, the drug-delivery claim currently rests on a thermal valve whose lower boundary is not tightly validated: the in vitro “body temperature” hold was run at 36 °C, and one phantom robot began release at 37.7 °C. The in vivo locomotion tests used empty robots, leaving the wax cap’s mechanical integrity during insertion, flushing, clamping, and tumbling untested. These issues are addressable but require additional experiments or a clearer reframing of the claims, so I recommend major revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.5.2 / Fig. 8 and Section 3.3.2] The no-premature-release validation has a load-bearing temperature discrepancy. The protocol holds the water at 36 °C for 20 minutes and labels this “body temperature,” while the results state “There is no detectable release of the BSA protein at body temperature (37 °C).” The actual 37 °C condition was therefore not tested. Because the release window is 38–42 °C and body temperature is ~37 °C, this one-degree difference matters for the safety claim. Please repeat the hold at 37.0 ± 0.2 °C (and preferably at 37.5 °C) with time-resolved sampling, or revise the claim to “no release below 38 °C” and support it with data at those temperatures.
  2. [Section 2.5.3 / Fig. 18] The phantom release data show a wide opening threshold: one robot began release at 37.7 °C and another at 40.9 °C. While 37.7 °C is nominally above 37 °C body temperature, the margin is only 0.7 °C, and the phantom water bath itself was maintained at 36 °C, so the robot started below body temperature before focused ultrasound heating. Moreover, the thermocouple is placed in the phantom lumen through a side cylinder, so the reported “initial release temperature” may not be the temperature at the wax cap. Please report the full per-trial temperature histories, clarify how the release temperature at the robot was determined, and provide a distribution of opening temperatures based on more than three replicates.
  3. [Section 3.1.3] The in vivo locomotion experiments were performed with payload-empty robots, so the wax cap’s integrity during anal insertion, saline flushing, cross-clamping, and tumbling at nominal body temperature is not established. Because the central drug-delivery concept requires the cap to act as a binary valve, sealed until focused ultrasound triggers melting, this missing experimental link is load-bearing. Please add at least an in vitro mechanical-integrity test: dye-loaded, wax-capped robots tumbled in 37 °C saline for the same durations and frequencies as the in vivo protocol, with leakage monitored. Alternatively, state explicitly that seal integrity under these mechanical stresses remains unverified and adjust the abstract and title accordingly.
  4. [Section 2.5.2 / Section 3.3.2] The quantitative release results, such as “about 80%” release for the w = 0.6 formulation and 93%/52%/100% averages across the three designs, are reported as mass or percent BSA, but the conversion from absorbance to BSA mass is not described. No standard curve, extinction coefficient, or reader calibration is given. Please add the calibration procedure, or report the data as relative fluorescence units rather than as absolute BSA mass.
  5. [Section 3.1.3 / Section 2.3.3] The statistical comparison between in vivo and in phantom velocities uses n = 2 rats, and the text states “3 replicates and 3 repeat measurements” without clarifying how replicates are nested within animals. With such a small number of subjects, the Shapiro-Wilk and Kruskal-Wallis procedures should be described with the effective sample size per frequency, and the per-animal data should be shown. The claim “significantly slower” should be tempered to “slower in this two-animal cohort” unless the analysis can justify the sample size.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Title] The phrase “targeted in vivo drug delivery” overstates what was demonstrated; the in vivo experiments tested locomotion only, and Section 4 correctly defers in vivo drug delivery to future work. Please qualify the title and abstract, for example “locomotion in vivo and drug release in vitro and in phantom.”
  2. [Abstract] The sentence “comprehensive assessments thermal drug release” is missing a preposition and should read “comprehensive assessments of thermal drug release.”
  3. [Section 3.3.1] The text reads “The solidified max mixture was noticeably softer”; this should be “solidified wax mixture.”
  4. [Section 3.3.2] The phrase “from on a Tukey HSD analysis” should be “based on a Tukey HSD analysis.”
  5. [Section 4] The phrase “The µTUMs locomotion capabilities” should be “The µTUMs’ locomotion capabilities.”
  6. [Section 2.3.1] The “9-panel examination” is not defined; please explain what the nine panels are and how the “tripartite testing sessions” map onto the reported averages.
  7. [Table 2] Table 2 lists “Payload Empty, Filled” for the in vivo environment, but Section 3.1.3 states that only the empty configuration was tested in vivo; please reconcile the table with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central claims are direct experimental measurements, with the wax formulation selected by calibration and then independently tested for release.

full rationale

This is an experimental characterization paper; there is no derivation chain whose conclusion is assumed in its inputs. The wax cap selection is a calibration process: eight wax/mineral-oil formulations are characterized by direct melting-point measurements (Fig. 15), w=0.6 is selected because its onset is roughly 39 degrees Celsius, and the subsequent BSA release is measured as an independent outcome (Fig. 17). The focused-ultrasound phantom release is likewise measured directly (Figs. 18-19). No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter; the drug-release outcomes are experimental observations, not forecasts derived from the tuning data. Self-citations, such as [41] for tumbling microrobots in the colon and [42] for responsive materials, provide background context and are not load-bearing for the measured claims. A reviewer might question the safety margin at body temperature because the 'body temperature' validation hold was run at 36 degrees Celsius and one phantom robot began releasing at 37.7 degrees Celsius, but that is a correctness and experimental-design concern, not circularity. The paper also explicitly defers in vivo drug delivery to future work, so the strongest claim is locomotion in vivo plus release in vitro and in phantom, all directly evidenced. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on direct experiments. The only hand-tuned design parameter is the wax mineral-oil fraction w=0.6, chosen so the cap melts near 39 °C. The domain assumptions are typical for a feasibility study, but they are not all verified in vivo: wax cap integrity during tumbling, NIH3T3 cells as a biocompatibility proxy, and the gelatin phantom as a stand-in for the rat colon. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • wax mineral oil mass fraction w = 0.6
    Empirically tuned to make the wax start melting near 39 °C, between body temperature (37 °C) and the tissue-safe upper bound (42 °C). w=0.7 was rejected because the wax became too soft at body temperature. This value is used in all release tests.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magnetic torque from a permanent magnet dominates magnetic force at this scale, so rotating the external field produces tumbling locomotion.
    Stated in Section 2.1 based on reference [47]; it underpins the entire actuation concept.
  • domain assumption The wax cap remains intact during insertion, saline flushing, and tumbling at 37 °C, and melts only under localized heating above roughly 38 °C.
    Release was tested in a beaker and in a gelatin phantom, not in vivo; the conclusion explicitly defers in vivo release studies to future work.
  • domain assumption In vitro NIH3T3 fibroblast viability, judged by the ISO 10993-5 threshold of 70%, is a sufficient proxy for short-term biocompatibility of the materials in the colon.
    Section 2.4 and Section 3.2 report no in vivo histology or blood analysis, so systemic or tissue-level responses are not assessed.
  • domain assumption The Gelatin #0 rat colon phantom with saline reproduces the key mechanical conditions of an inflated rat colon.
    Used in Section 2.2.3 and Section 3.1.2 to extrapolate phantom locomotion results to in vivo; differences in friction, peristalsis, and flexible tissue remain unmodeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel Design of 3D Printed Tumbling Microrobots for in vivo Targeted Drug Delivery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZH6WE7H3

@misc{pith2026250700166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel Design of 3D Printed Tumbling Microrobots for in vivo Targeted Drug Delivery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZH6WE7H3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00166}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents innovative designs for 3D-printed tumbling microrobots, specifically engineered for targeted in vivo drug delivery applications. The microrobot designs, created using stereolithography 3D printing technologies, incorporate permanent micro-magnets to enable actuation via a rotating magnetic field actuator system. The experimental framework encompasses a series of locomotion characterization tests to evaluate microrobot performance under various conditions. Testing variables include variations in microrobot geometries, actuation frequencies, and environmental conditions, such as dry and wet environments, and temperature changes. The paper outlines designs for three drug loading methods, along with comprehensive assessments thermal drug release using a focused ultrasound system, as well as biocompatibility tests. Animal model testing involves tissue phantoms and in vivo rat models, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the microrobots' performance and compatibility. The results highlight the robustness and adaptability of the proposed microrobot designs, showcasing the potential for efficient and targeted in vivo drug delivery. This novel approach addresses current limitations in existing tumbling microrobot designs and paves the way for advancements in targeted drug delivery within the large intestine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic tumbling microrobots (µTUMs) for in vivo targeted drug delivery. a) The 50 mm average diameter of a human colon [46]. b) Top port µTUM designs from left to right as printed, with magnet inserted, and payload filled and capped. c) The 8.5 mm average diameter of a rat colon. (a) TP: Top Ports Design (b) SP: Side Ports Design (c) EP: End Ports Design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3D printed magnetic µTUM designs with different port configurations and geometry for controlled drug release. T⃗m = ⃗mr × B⃗ The microrobots presented here incorporate permanent micro-magnets into their structure, allowing them to respond to external magnetic fields. At the scale of these microrobots, the magnetic torques generated by a permanent magnet or electromagnetic coil are much larger–often several orders of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Steps for loading and coating µTUM-TP robots. These robots were loaded with a proxy drug solution consisting of blue food dye, 0.07% Tween20, and MilliQ water. They were sealed with a wax formulation of w = 0.6 mass fraction of mineral oil. (A) Proxy drug is extracted using CELLINK 25 gauge high-precision blunt needle. (B) and (C): The solution is injected through the top ports of the robot. (D) The robot is held fr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rat colon phantom creation process. (A) Short axis B-mode images of the inflated colon along the length of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the rotating magnetic field actuation system (RMFAS). It has an operating workspace approxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In vivo testing: (A) Schematic of the colon geometry superimposed on a rat. (B) Schematic of an anesthetized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experimental setup for BSA release study at t = 0 min and t = 60 min, respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Graphical representation of how the temperature was changed during the BSA release study. Body temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In phantom drug release testing. (Left) Schematic and (Right) actual image of phantom and focused ultrasound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3.1.1 In vitro Testing The in vitro velocity testing results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Locomotion testing. Snapshots of µTUM locomotion in (A) in vitro, (B) in phantom, and (C) in vivo environ￾ments. Note: Images from in vitro tests are shown with an overhead view using a CCD camera. The µTUM is traversing a gelatin#0 sheet on a flat substrate. Images f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: In vitro Locomotion Testing. Velocity of µTUMs vs magnetic actuation frequency in wet and dry environments with 0◦ slope. In the dry environment, µTUMs are placed on a 3D printed substrate of the same material as the µTUMs. In the wet environment, µTUMs are submerged …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: In phantom Locomotion Testing. Velocity of various µTUM robots operating in the phantom vs magnetic actu￾ation frequency. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: In vivo Locomotion Testing. Velocity of empty µTUM-TPs in vivo and in the phantom vs magnetic actuation frequency. *p <0.05 indicating significant differences between in phantom and in vivo velocities at lower operating frequen￾cies. was assessed under Levene’s test. …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Biocompatibility testing results. (a) Cell proliferation of different materials: (i) Formlabs resin; (ii) Crushed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Wax Melting Point Study. Average initial and final melting point of each wax mixture (paraffin wax and min [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: In Vitro Drug Release Study. Average BSA release by percentage for different µTUM designs (n = 3) after lo￾cal heating to 42◦C for 10 minutes. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: In vitro Drug Release Study. BSA Release from different µTUM-TP designs (n = 3): (a) Mass of BSA released from the robot at each time point. (b) Percent of BSA released at each time point. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: In phantom Drug Release Study. Initial and final release temperatures for different µTUM-TP samples in the phantom (n = 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: In phantom Drug Release. Snapshot of dye release of µTUM-TP robot in the phantom using focused ultra￾sound for targeted heating. t = time elapsed in seconds. The upper and lower boundaries of the phantom can be seen outlined in the dashed yellow lines. 17 [PITH_FULL_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    E. E. Niedert, C. Bi, G. Adam, E. Lambert, L. Solorio, C. J. Goergen, D. J. Cappelleri, Microma- chines 2020, 11 861

    work page 2020

  2. [42]

    L. Tan, A. C. Davis, D. J. Cappelleri, Advanced Functional Materials 2021, 31

    work page 2021

  3. [43]

    V. S. Bachu, J. Kedda, I. Suk, J. J. Green, B. Tyler, Annals of Biomedical Engineering 2021, 49, 9 1975

    work page 2021

  4. [44]

    Q. L. Zhou, Z. Y. Chen, Y. X. Wang, F. Yang, Y. Lin, Y. Y. Liao, BioMed Research International 2014, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [45]

    Dromi, V

    S. Dromi, V. Frenkel, A. Luk, B. Traughber, M. Angstadt, M. Bur, J. Poff, J. Xie, S. K. Libutti, K. C. Li, B. J. Wood, Clinical Cancer Research 2007, 13, 9 2722

    work page 2007

  6. [46]

    H. F. Helander, L. F¨ andriks,Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 2014, 49, 6 681

    work page 2014

  7. [47]

    Sitti, Mobile Microrobotics, Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents series

    M. Sitti, Mobile Microrobotics, Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents series. MIT Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [48]

    X. Song, R. Sun, R. Wang, K. Zhou, R. Xie, J. Lin, D. Georgiev, A. A. Paraschiv, R. Zhao, M. M. Stevens, Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 43 1

    work page 2022

Show all 17 references
  1. [49]

    G. Adam, A. Benouhiba, K. Rabenorosoa, C. Cl´ evy, D. J. Cappelleri, Advanced Intelligent Systems 2021, 3, 5

    2021

  2. [50]

    J. Li, M. Pumera, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50 2794

    2021

  3. [51]

    Rajabasadi, L

    F. Rajabasadi, L. Schwarz, M. Medina-S´ anchez, O. G. Schmidt, Progress in Materials Science 2021, 100808

    2021

  4. [52]

    T. L. Szabo, Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out , Academic Press Series in Biomedical En- gineering. Elsevier Science, 2004

    2004

  5. [53]

    Simvascular, URL https://simvascular.github.io/

  6. [54]

    G. Shao, H. O. T. Ware, J. Huang, R. Hai, L. Li, C. Sun, Additive Manufacturing 2021, 38

    2021

  7. [55]

    Liang, J

    X. Liang, J. Gao, L. Jiang, J. Luo, L. Jing, X. Li, Y. Jin, Z. Dai, ACS Nano 2015, 9, 2 1280

    2015

  8. [56]

    D. O. Draper, C. Mahaffey, D. Kaiser, D. Eggett, J. Jarmin, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 2010, 26, 3 167

    2010

  9. [57]

    S. V. Gudjonsson, The Journal of Physiology 1932, 74, 1 73. 20

    1932

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.