Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a lack of consensus regarding a clear and precise definition of regenerative medicine. We suggest here a definition developed by the authors with input from researchers in the various contributing disciplines. This definition emphasizes the interdisciplinarity of the field, its goal of restoring impaired function, and the wide variety of technologies that can contribute to achieving this goal. By highlighting the lack of agreement regarding a definition of regenerative medicine, and by proposing our own definition, we hope to stimulate discussion on the subject within the field and to encourage the regenerative medicine community to work together to develop a consensus definition. We believe that a clear definition of regenerative medicine could help to unify the field and is essential to facilitate understanding among policy makers, funding agencies and the general public, as well as individuals from scientific and medical disciplines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".