American Association of Anatomists meeting on regenerative medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several years ago, the American Association of Anatomists (AAA) launched an innovative mini-meeting format as part of their annual meeting. The AAA continued this tradition by sponsoring a 2-day mini-symposium as a part of its meeting at FASEB Experimental Biology, 2006 in San Francisco, CA, USA. This year, the mini-symposium was focused on the promising and rapidly developing field of 'regenerative medicine'. The mini-symposium on 'regenerative medicine' included four separate but thematically integrated sessions: stem cells for regenerative medicine; biomimetic matrices for regenerative medicine; endothelial-mesenchymal transformation in cardiovascular regenerative medicine; and tissue engineering technologies for regenerative medicine. The goal of these sessions was to identify progress and highlight new trends and directions in the evolving field of regenerative medicine. It was an exciting 2-day mini-symposium that reviewed the differential potential of embryonic and adult stem cells, their role in tissue turnover and possible applications in tissue regeneration; identified important evolving basic science issues, such as the role of endothelial-mesenchymal transformation and stem cell recruitment in cardiovascular regenerative medicine; and, finally, clearly demonstrated how understanding basic scientific principles can be translated into novel cell therapeutics and tissue engineering modalities. The workshop also demonstrated the multidisciplinary (speakers included stem cell and developmental biologists, chemical engineers, tissue engineers, biophysicists, mathematicians and surgeons) and international (speakers represented US, Japan, Canada, Switzerland and Korea) character of ongoing efforts in the area of regenerative medicine and stem cell biology, impressive progress in this field, and confirmed the strong potential for clinical translation of emerging regenerative medicine technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".