Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Predicting Biocompatibility in Tissue Scaffold Images
Citation
ÖNCÜ, Emir, Kadriye Yasemin Usta AYANOĞLU & Fatih ÇİFTÇİ. “Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Predicting Biocompatibility in Tissue Scaffold Images”. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 192.A (2025): 1-13.Abstract
Motivation: Bioprinting enables the creation of complex tissue scaffolds, which are vital for tissue engineering.
However, predicting scaffold biocompatibility before fabrication remains a critical challenge, potentially leading
to inefficiencies and resource wastage. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, particularly Artificial Neural Networks
(ANNs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), offer promising predictive capabilities to address this issue.
This study aims to compare the performance of ANN and CNN models to identify the most suitable approach for
predicting scaffold biocompatibility using PrusaSlicer-generated designs.
Description: Fifteen key design parameters influencing scaffold biocompatibility were modelled using ANN, while
scaffold images were analyzed using CNN. PrusaSlicer was employed in designing scaffolds, with parameters
influencing biocompatibility predictions. ANN models analyzed these parameters, while CNN models processed
scaffold images. Data was standardized, and models were trained on an 80/20 split dataset. Performance evaluation
metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, F1-Scores, and confusion matrices. Experimental validation
involved biocompatibility tests on five scaffolds.
Results: ANN model with 20 neurons and 100 epochs earned perfect (1.0) scores in F1-Score, Precision, and
Recall, indicating the best possible model performance. A batch size of 56 for the Convolutional Neural Network
model demonstrated balance in F1-Score (0.87), Precision (0.88), and Recall (0.9). Five scaffold tissues were
tested for biocompatibility using these two models. ANN model predicted 5 scaffold tissues’ biocompatibilities
correctly. While the ANN model accurately predicted biocompatibilities for all five scaffold samples, the CNN
model misclassified one sample.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that ANN models are superior to CNN models in predicting scaffold
biocompatibility from numerical design parameters. The findings underscore the value of ANNs for structured
data in bioprinting, enhancing prediction accuracy and efficiency. These insights can accelerate advancements in
tissue engineering and personalized medicine by reducing costs and improving success rates in bioprinting applications.
Future work will focus on addressing overfitting challenges and optimizing the models to further
enhance their robustness and predictive capabilities.



















